Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[leroy]

The question wasn't clear enough....

Thanks sparafoc.

But Leroy was correct.

He claimed you would not provide a clear answer and you did not.

Don't take it personal, he never answers questions clearly and unambiguously.

 

[leroy]

why is it that you always what to impose your own personal favorite definitions of terms?

Errrr.... ironic, LEROY.

That's what you do.

Quick reality check.

Between LEROY and Sparhafoc, who's native language is English?

Oh wait, yes it's me.

As such, you do not get to dictate the meaning of words in my fucking language. Get over yourself already.

I disagree, at least sometimes it is better to regulate bad stuff than forbidding it. And I am pretty sure you can think of multiple real life examples.

Then you are morally stunted and wrong.

1) Regulating includes banning

2) There is NO exception to the rule that it is ALWAYS better to ban slavery than to 'regulate' it.

If you do not agree with 2, then you are CONDONING SLAVERY BY FUCKING DEFINITION.

Remember? My fucking language - I am using the word exactly as other people whose native language is English use this word. If you have a different meaning, nobody cares because your native language is not English - get the fuck over yourself already.

con·done
kənˈdōn/
verb
verb: condone; 3rd person present: condones; past tense: condoned; past participle: condoned; gerund or present participle: condoning

accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

Ergo, if you provide an argument that says there are times where it's preferable to have slavery than not, you are fucking condoning slavery.

So shut the fuck up already you gibbering loon.

I have said multiple times in this forum that there are parts of the bible that I personally don't like, and I wouldn't claim with certainty that the whole bible is divine and inspired.

You said the first sentence once, and you've never said the last sentence in any post I've seen you write.

The thing is - if you believe this sentence, then your behavior here becomes even less clear.

I am used to fundamentalist idiots who want to declare that every word in the Bible supersedes everything else, and they ALL behave like you - but I've never seen a single one of them engage in nuance. In my experience, those Christians capable of engaging in nuance were honest, polite individuals who most assuredly were not Creationists in the anti-scientific sense.

I think you're even more confused than you could be aware of.

you might find it surprising but words usually have more than one meaning and the meaning is dependent on the context in which the word is being used.


An argument is not wrong, just because the person making the argument is not using your own personal favorite definition.


....
I have no idea what you meant in the last paragraph, I think that there are good (but not indisputable) reasons to think that the bible is divine. This is my view.

 

[leroy]

And where was God all those years of organized slavery?

Even assuming God didn't care what the pagans like the Romans did - they're pagans worshiping false gods after all - but then there was an era of expressly Christian nations enslaving tens of thousands of human beings, using Christian scripture as justification for their enslavement.

Why didn't God step in there?

A single word from the heavens and every Christian would have changed their behavior.

So why does God do nothing to stop slavery? Neither in the Bible, nor in practice.

Either 1) God is fine with one human owning another human or 2) God, at least the one according to modern Christians, doesn't exist or 3) God does exist and is not ok with slavery, but is powerless to change it.

the answer is 3

see how easy it is to provide clear and direct answers?


If your will is to do something bad, like owning a slave, God can not do anything to stop you.

 

[MarsCydonia]

you might find it surprising but words usually have more than one meaning and the meaning is dependent on the context in which the word is being used.

:lol:
I think we've gotten used to it with "Leroy's version of condoning", "Leroy's version of transcendent", "Leroy's version of human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." etc.

But if anyone still has doubts: don't expect a word to mean what it means when Leroy uses it.

When Leroy uses a word, like "Leroy's version of transcendent" it can mean the complete opposite.

If your will is to do something bad, like owning a slave, God can not do anything to stop you.

I did not expect god to have less power than governments or law agencies...
Or anyone of us here for that matter.
Except for the slavery-apologists like Leroy and Bernhard, we're all speaking out against slavery: we have more power than god.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparafoc.. .. " im not an atheist"

Me .... " what are you then?"

Sparafoc....." I'm 41 years old"

Me.... " what a douche"

Sparafoc.... *offended*

Lol

Aside from the obvious trolling, this clearly didn't happen, Bernie.

And what are you? 10 years old?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Either 1) God is fine with one human owning another human or 2) God, at least the one according to modern Christians, doesn't exist or 3) God does exist and is not ok with slavery, but is powerless to change it.

the answer is 3

see how easy it is to provide clear and direct answers?


If your will is to do something bad, like owning a slave, God can not do anything to stop you.

And LEROY shows he doesn't even bother reading to what he replies to! :lol:

 

[leroy]

you might find it surprising but words usually have more than one meaning and the meaning is dependent on the context in which the word is being used.

:lol:
I think we've gotten used to it with "Leroy's version of condoning", "Leroy's version of transcendent", "Leroy's version of human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." etc.

But if anyone still has doubts: don't expect a word to mean what it means when Leroy uses it.

When Leroy uses a word, like "Leroy's version of transcendent" it can mean the complete opposite.

If your will is to do something bad, like owning a slave, God can not do anything to stop you.

I did not expect god to have less power than governments or law agencies...
Or anyone of us here for that matter.
Except for the slavery-apologists like Leroy and Bernhard, we're all speaking out against slavery: we have more power than god.

It is just the cost that God has to pay.

If he wanted to create a world with free creatures, then he has to deal with the fact that some people would freely do things that God doesn't like.

 

[leroy]

Sparafoc.. .. " im not an atheist"

Me .... " what are you then?"

Sparafoc....." I'm 41 years old"

Me.... " what a douche"

Sparafoc.... *offended*

Lol

Aside from the obvious trolling, this clearly didn't happen, Bernie.

And what are you? 10 years old?

that is exactly what happened

 

[Sparhafoc]

you might find it surprising but words usually have more than one meaning and the meaning is dependent on the context in which the word is being used.

What might be surprising for me is if you got over yourself and stopped pretending that you know English better than a native speaker of English.

You clearly struggle to write syntactically correct sentences, as you are repeatedly told.

So the fact that inevitably leap to a semantic wibble in a language that's not even your first is just obnoxious.

As I clearly explained in the post in which you are supposedly replying, if your argument suggests that slavery can continue, that is CONDONING.

I don't give a fuck about your need to change every word to suit your argument, it's not your language to prescribe.

An argument is not wrong, just because the person making the argument is not using your own personal favorite definition.

And a red herring.

I didn't say the argument was wrong, I said it was condoning slavery.

....
I have no idea what you meant in the last paragraph, I think that there are good (but not indisputable) reasons to think that the bible is divine. This is my view.

Well, you can't go from telling a native English speaker what words mean in their own language to failing to parse perfectly legible English moments later.

Unless you're LEROY, of course, in which case any behavior is justified when you're always right by default.

 

[leroy]

And LEROY shows he doesn't even bother reading to what he replies to! :lol:

at least I can provide direct answers.

 

[Sparhafoc]

that is exactly what happened

You both behave like infants.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And LEROY shows he doesn't even bother reading to what he replies to! :lol:

at least I can provide direct answers.

No LEROY, that's something you very rarely do.

That's why half a dozen people in this forum routinely point out how you've evaded answering.

Either they're all wrong, or LEROY is wrong.

 

[MarsCydonia]

It is just the cost that God has to pay.

If he wanted to create a world with free creatures, then he has to deal with the fact that some people would freely do things that God doesn't like.

Yet how do slavery-apologists like Leroy deal with god's selective violation of "freely do things"?

"God wants a world with free creatures, therefore he doesn't speak out against slavery, rape or theft or murder"?
But
"Wait, God wants a world with partially free creatures, therefore it's why he's fine with slavery and rape but not theft or murder"?

God apparently doesn't like it when his "free creatures" murder but when they enslave other human beings he doesn't seem to mind as much, doesn't he.

Is this the best slavery-apologists can come up with?

 

[MarsCydonia]

at least I can provide direct answers.

No LEROY, that's something you very rarely do.

That's why half a dozen people in this forum routinely point out how you've evaded answering.

Either they're all wrong, or LEROY is wrong.

Oh Leroy can provide direct answers but he may believe that if he ever did do so, we wouldn't be free creatures.
Same reason god didn't speak out against slavery :lol:

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparafoc.. .. " im not an atheist"

Me .... " what are you then?"

Sparafoc....." I'm 41 years old"

Me.... " what a douche"

Sparafoc.... *offended*

Lol

Aside from the obvious trolling, this clearly didn't happen, Bernie.

And what are you? 10 years old?

that is exactly what happened

And LEROY's up to his old tricks,

Ok, this is how to deal with LEROY's revisionism:

Here's what actually happened:


http://leagueofreason.org.uk/posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=182041

The question wasn't clear enough....

Thanks sparafoc.

But Leroy was correct.

He claimed you would not provide a clear answer and you did not.

Anyone see Bernie call me a douche there?

LEROY and Bernie both say that it happened. I can't see it.


Then I replied:

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=182046

Are you claiming that I am not any of the above?

Or are you asking a more specific question that you failed to write?

Do feel free to get back to asking me what it is you want to ask me. I will probably even answer.

I can't assure you of it though - it depends on the question, the style in which the question's phrased, and whether I want to share that information with you.

Either which way, regardless of LEROY's and your Creationist hubris, I can assure you that I know a lot more about me than you do.

Anyone see me take offense there?

LEROY and Bernie both say it happened. I can't see it.

Perhaps their absolute certainty can shed light on this conundrum.

Or they can admit to being silly little trolls if they like and rejoin the adults' table.

 

[Sparhafoc]

How can Leroy still be so oblivious after several comments? He doesn't know what "condoning" is. It isn't Sparhafoc that is using his personal definition, it isn't me using my personal definition either,...

Quite, and more significantly a) LEROY's native language is not English, but it is overweened hubris and b) LEROY thrives on these semantic quibbles whenever someone challenges his contention.

I fail to understand a person who can't raise their hand and admit even the slightest error.

 

[leroy]

It is just the cost that God has to pay.

If he wanted to create a world with free creatures, then he has to deal with the fact that some people would freely do things that God doesn't like.

Yet how do slavery-apologists like Leroy deal with god's selective violation of "freely do things"?

"God wants a world with free creatures, therefore he doesn't speak out against slavery, rape or theft or murder"?
But
"Wait, God wants a world with partially free creatures, therefore it's why he's fine with slavery and rape but not theft or murder"?

God apparently doesn't like it when his "free creatures" murder but when they enslave other human beings he doesn't seem to mind as much, doesn't he.

Is this the best slavery-apologists can come up with?

I honestly don't understand your point.

a free creature can enslave and murder someone if wills it.


that is my reply to Sparhafoc when he provided 3 alternatives and I chose 3

 

[leroy]

[
Or they can admit to being silly little trolls if they like and rejoin the adults' table.

we can make a survey in this forum


who thinks Sparhafoc answered to Bernhards question clearly?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Yet how do slavery-apologists like Leroy deal with god's selective violation of "freely do things"?

"God wants a world with free creatures, therefore he doesn't speak out against slavery, rape or theft or murder"?
But
"Wait, God wants a world with partially free creatures, therefore it's why he's fine with slavery and rape but not theft or murder"?

God apparently doesn't like it when his "free creatures" murder but when they enslave other human beings he doesn't seem to mind as much, doesn't he.

Is this the best slavery-apologists can come up with?

I honestly don't understand your point.

a free creature can enslave and murder someone if wills it.

Sigh... Let's see if I can dumb one more thing down for Leroy.

So Leroy's excuse is "God did not forbid slavery because he wants free creatures", wasn't it? It is, as Leroy puts it, "the cost that God has to pay".
Let's compare:
"God did not forbid murder because he wants free creatures"
"God did not forbid theft because he wants free creatures"
"God did not forbid eating shellfish because he wants free creatures"
"God did not forbid wearing clothes of two fabrics because he wants free creatures"

If forbidding anything prevents having "free creatures" and god wants free creatures, then he shouldn't forbid anything. But out of the 4 examples above? God forbade everyone of them in the bible.

Is forbidding murder, theft, eating shellfish, etc. a violation of our freewill? Leroy must answer yes because if he answers no, then forbidding slavery isn't a violation of our free will either.

And all this above? Still doesn't mesh with what Leroy previously said. Leroy didn't say it was against god's wishes to forbid slavery, he said it was against god's power to forbid slavery.

Slavery-apologists sure do dance a lot.

 

[MarsCydonia]

we can make a survey in this forum

who thinks Sparhafoc answered to Bernhards question clearly?

Can we also make this survey?

"Who thinks Leroy didn't run away from answering the criticism that was offered to him in the "Arguments for God's Existence" thread?"