["But nice of you to assume another's background is extreme just because they are not the same opinion of yours."]
You know what the character '?' means. It indicates a question, not a fixed statement. And I used that in the context you refer to.
Quote: ["A slave in the time that the Bible was written was just a class. It meant you were conquered. Shall I show you pictures of societies in S
America where captured enemies, though now slaves, still had honor in the eyes of their conquerers?"]
Instead of pink tales of how 'noble' and 'humanistic' slavery can be, I would be much more interested in stories about various christian missionaries'
impact on indigenous cultures. E.g. South America and Greenland. Which brings us considerably closer to contemporary times than OT.
Quote: ["But overall a slave in a good household lived a half decent life."]
So that's OK then?
You seem to have some kind of fascination for diminishing the barbarity of slavery; even to the point of mixing it up with your theological
Quote: ["Don't go masta and other irrelevant terms on me."]
I take it 'masta' is a typo-error for 'massa'. Naturally it's irrelevant for you, but it isn't for me and my contemporary similar minded, and I'm
quite sure it wasn't for the slaves either.
Quote: ["Abraham promised his whole positions to his slave before he had a son. Because that 's what a slave was."]
If I remeber correctly, she was a slave given to him for sexual/child-bearing services. Is that ideals you're recommending to re-instate? If not, why
do you use them as examples of anything in a contemporary context?
Quote: ["That naturally leads to freedom. It's pretty obvious that when God says you and your slave are equal, he is saying you and your slaves are
both the same. What's the point of having a slave if you are told you are equal to him? That is what leads to freedom."]
It probably takes a christian mindset to see the sense or logic of this.
Quote: [" And yes, plenty of Christians deserve bombing"]
Christians not being true, loving christians of the correct denomination? You have any other candidates, while you're at it. Muslims?
Quote: ["Just for the record, Gandhi was a Hindu"]
You're right. He never became a Jain nominally, though he followed Jain in practise.
Quote: ["Ok. So thousands of years ago Christians killed gnostics."]
Actually it was not 'thousands of years ago', but starting somewhere around 11-12 century.
Quote: ["Why am I responsible?"]
Without 'assuming' too much about you, it would be an educated guess that you weren't born then. So why this question?
Quote: ["Why, better yet, is the religion of today responsible?"]
Now THIS is a relatively sensible question. And a sensible answer is that some parts of the various christianities hasn't changed that much in deed or
doctrine since then. I repeat my quote from above:
["plenty of Christians deserve bombing. Hence why we bombed the Christian populated cities in Germany."]
It's the same attitude, the same book and .....what else (I don't know your version of 'true christianity'). Your religion did it then, and you seem
to support such methods these days...and you're surprised of oppostion?
Quote: ["Who the hell is talking of ignorance if you think that the actions of one man reflect the opinions of another."]
Temper, temper. I'm referring directly to your IMO own peculiar stances on slavery and bombing christians.
Quote: ["No people on Earth have not been slaves. No people on earth are innocent of stealing land. No people on Earth are innocent of raping and
And by having an ambivalent attitude to slavery and bombing some christians of the 'wrong kind', we move forward into civilized times, where the old
atrocities won't be repeated.
Quote: ["Because no one is God. And it's all right there is that book what you should and should not do."]
Which part of it? And by which interpretation of this part?
Quote: ["But people ignore it."]
They have their reasons.
Quote: ["Now what counts is a man doing what he wants. What the individual does."]
In liberal, egalitarian, secular democracy....inside certain limits. What's your alternative?
Quote: ["Associating unlinked people with the same ideology is the very definition of ignorance."]
So your thoughts on slavery and bombing christians are all your own, unassociated with general christian doctrines?
Quote: ["No, Because it is ion our calling to give all we can give, save all we can save, and earn all we can earn to help with."]
Fine with me, as long as I can stay out of it.
Quote: ["That's not predestination."]
It was in your former post. Has it changed in the meantime?
Quote: ["If you want to talk God,...."]
Quote: ["God is out of time, He's the author. We're the characters. So the author knows how the story goes, even though the characters don't. Why?
That's the way it is. You'r ein this universe, suck it up."]
I need some individual examples of what happens before I'll even believe in the story. Even less follow it. Can you supply such examples I can relate
directly to. Alleged persons from your manual doesn't count for me.
Quote: ["Submission to follow what is right. Not to submit to cruel leaders."]
Again. Exactly which 'god' are we talking about?
Quote: ["Beating your enemy with a stick is not the only way to beat him."]
Generally I avoid beating people, but for your part I understand it's acceptable to bomb them.
Quote: ["I mean, your post is full of ignorance and assumptions. Can you please stop assuming and just saying untrue crap?"]
You ask me to say c***. Why? As to assuming, do you define this as disagreeing with you, you religious manual or do you have other reference points I
can relate to?
Quote: ["If you rebel, you die. That's what all governments go by. If you don't rebel, you go up. Slowly. It's much slower, but it gets you there in
the end. This is what works."]
I'll take my chances.
Quote: [Now, if the world was perfect, leaders would help their people. Slaves and the underclass would work with pride, and the people in between
would do the same. People would do with pride what their skills have allowed. As I said, cotton farming is not the only work for a slave."]
I may be wrong, but does this imply, that there will be slaves in your new religious Utopia.
Quote: ["Many times in history slaves had honor. In fact the Turks had a class of slave that they turned into leaders called the Devşirme. The
Architect Mimar Sinan is one such example, and he is arguable one of the greatest Islamic architects ever. They would take a person with skill,
enslave them to learn that skill, then put them into a job that their skills could be used for as freemen."]
I believe Saudiarabia would be just the place for you. If rumours are correct, they still have some kind of in-official slavery there.
Quote: ["Do stop assuming all kinds of wild idiocracy."]
I'm actually a very factual person. So relating to your christian loving hostility (which without doubt is for my own good) I have another suggestion.
If you can get out of all your words and doctrines, we can consider 'assumptions', 'wild' and 'ideocracy' (whatever that is) together from a rational
edit on 19-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling