"I don't know the capital of Delaware, but I see Billy wrote 'Dover.' I'd like to write that on my test, but I'm not sure my tribe would survive."

[stiggy wiggy]

I am not lying.

And yet you are, as I have shown.

You are still posting your stupid failed analogies that are not actually analogous to what we are discussing.

You should not project your stupidity in failing to understand the analogies onto the analogies themselves.

If you are going to keep trotting them out, I will keep reminding you why they fail.

And I will keep reminding you of how they succeed and of your stupidity in not understanding that.

Would we expect him to explicitly say that a deeply immoral act is allowed? Definitely not.

Wrong. He allows divorce.

And yet that is what Christianity claims: A perfectly good God, who said chattel slavery is allowed.

Correct. Like divorce too. He allows the lesser of many immoral acts.

To you, the conclusion seems to be that I am a "self-righeous" "Pharisee" .....

Because you are. You make Jerry Falwell look like a libertine.

No, stiggy, the analogy fails, because God said chattel slavery is allowed. He did not say that of spitting in people's faces.

Nope. The analogy succeeds because there is no lesser of many evils involved with spitting.

Here is the list you keep forgetting.

FORGETTING? How the hell could I forget my having so thoroughly trounced your dumba** list so many times?

Spitting in faces fails on number (1), because God did said chattel slavery is allowed.. He never said that of spitting in faces.

YOU JUST SAID THAT!!! Are you repeating yourself due to autism, or forgetfulness, or is it just plain stupidity? Anyway, see my previous rebuttal directly above.

Again!

No, not again.

Divorce fails on number (2), because God did say he disapproves of divorce. He never said that of slavery.

See spitting in face analogy. It is perfectly analogous. And see math ratio analogy. You've never even attempted to deal with that one. It's the one in bold where you as the hypothetical little Pixie are just as obtuse as you are now as the real adult Pixie.

If your example does not have all three of them, it is not analogous. It is as simple as that.

Now that's just downright stupid. If all of the components in an analogy are the same, you have an equation, not an analogy.

None of your examples have all three points in common.

An analogy that does is a boss explicitly telling his employees they are allowed to commit rape during lunch break.

Nonsense. The analogy is this:

The ALLOWING of X, whether that X be smoking, rape, bobsledding or divorce is not tantamount to the APPROVAL of X.

So now you want to trivialise slavery down to "bitch-slapping".

So you prefer bitch slapping? You APPROVE of bitch slapping?

You want to ignore the moral aspect of this. I get that. If we consider the morality, you are sunk. You need for us to discuss the words.

You're the one who just implied (according top your twisted logic) that you APPROVE of bitch slapping and don't find it immoral.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about God being morally wrong when he said chattel slavery is allowed.


Yes, God allow divorce. But divorce fails on number (2), because God did say he disapproves of divorce. He never said that of slavery.

Nor of spitting in people's faces, so according to you He APPROVES of spitting in people's faces. And bitch slapping.

1. God said chattel slavery is allowed
2. God never said he disapproves of chattel slavery
3. Slavery is morally wrong

Wapner at 8. I speculated earlier, autism. Alzheimer's or stupidity). I'm now leaning toward the latter.

YOU couldn't handle rebutting my OP, so YOU changed the issue to your self righteous condemnation of the God you don't believe exists for ALLOWING that of which He does not APPROVE, i.e. slavery.​

Yep, let's see that again:

YOU couldn't handle rebutting my OP, so YOU changed the issue to your self righteous condemnation of the God you don't believe exists for ALLOWING that of which He does not APPROVE, i.e. slavery.

This thread is quite an eye-opener with regards to Christian morality.

Actually, it's quite an eye-opener with regards to atheistic stupidity.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Exactly

So He forces Himself to do stuff?

God had a choice

He could have called slavery a sin and told His followers to avoid it

But He didn't. And ......?

or
He could have supplied rules and regulations allowing slavery

He did that.

He consciously, purposefully, and needlessly made the immoral choice

Wrong. God has no needs.

 

[King Charisma]

I know it is difficult for you to relate to but I know that Jesus Christ is real. There is no doubt in my mind.

You're confusing lack of doubt with knowledge. They are not the same thing.

 

[Caroljeen]

You're confusing lack of doubt with knowledge. They are not the same thing.

No, I'm talking about experiential knowledge.

 

[King Charisma]

No, I'm talking about experiential knowledge.

Is that "knowledge" how you know slavery isn't a sin?

 

[Caroljeen]

Is that "knowledge" how you know slavery isn't a sin?

No. I know that the Bible doesn't teach that slavery is a sin because God didn't condemn it. He reluctantly allowed it and regulated it.

We've been discussing slavery on two threads. You may have missed some of the discussion.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

God has no needs
Therefore, God didn't NEED to allow slavery

Correct.

Nor did He need to allow divorce. But many Christian wives with black eyes and broken noses are glad He did.

 

[Caroljeen]

I’m not sure that writing off pretty much everybody in classical antiquity (at least) as ‘disgusting monsters’ is very reasonable.

"It is estimated that 40% to 50% of Roman Italy were slaves."

Slaves Were “Lifeless Tools” in the Ancient World - EARLY CHURCH HISTORY

During the infant years of the Christian faith, society was divided into two classes: slave and free. All ancient civilizations had slaves.

earlychurchhistory.org

 

[stiggy wiggy]

In case you didn't know it, stigs - slavery is immoral and evil

You're going to have to do better than a simpleton declarative sentence to convince me that YOU of all people have enough authority as a Pharisee to throw stones at the Father of our Country.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Nice. So on those grounds I take it you have no objection to the ALLOWING of same sex marriage, since it is not tantamount to the approval of it?

YOU GOT IT!! See, Pixie. Even that guy gets it.

 

[King Charisma]

edit

I am.

 

[Caroljeen]

I am.

Your army is the victor in a war. What do you do with the captives of the opposing army, if you lived back in the first century? What do you do with their country?

 

[Lucian]

I am.

That's a pity, and worth reconsidering.

 

[Furion]

I am.

Here's the problem, super attractive personality boy, I'm not convinced you are any better. Too bad for you.

 

[Whatsisface]

I know it is difficult for you to relate to but I know that Jesus Christ is real. There is no doubt in my mind. I know his character from experience and from the Bible. This prevents me from turning my back on him.
This is a conundrum that I will continue to seek explanation for.
Thanks for your concern.

Actually, I think I understand to a degree why you think you know Jesus is real, although not fully because I don't believe.

However, the certainty you express above I've seen Muslims, Hindu's, Scientologists etc etc also express.

 

[docphin5]

Your interpretation is allegorical and one in which very few could possibly piece the scriptures together to arrive at your interpretation.
I have never heard of you interpretation, ever.

Given that you only recently considered evolution as POSSIBLY true (I never read that you actually accept it as true) even though the whole world scientific community accepts it as true demonstrates that what you have heard to be true is severely limited. Moreover, I am one of those exhorting you to accept evolution as true because it is true.

The two covenants were by Moses and Jesus also called testaments.

Moses was the mediator of the Old covenant. Exodus 24

Jeremiah 31: 31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord.

Jesus is the mediator of the New covenant. Hebrews 8-10 compares and contrasts both covenants.
Your interpretation is not found in those chapters.

Have you shared your understanding of the OT with practicing Jew?

You want me to ask those who allegedly killed Jesus what their scriptures meant? Have you thought this through? Instead, I went to the Jews who founded Christianity, the ones whose literature you refuse to read.

Once Christ came and fulfilled the law there is no longer a need for a tutor. We have the Holy Spirit in us to teach us.

Right, so why ask atheists or scientists for explanations on how the world began if you have your Bible, the Rabbis (who allegedly killed Jesus), and your “Holy Spirit”. Why dont you ask them? Frankly, you dont seem too bright if you dont see any irony there, —how you claim to be led by something or someone other than the actual people you are talking too.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Frankly, you dont seem too bright ......................the actual people you are talking too.

.

 

[docphin5]

I have shown... stupidity in failing to understand the analogies onto the analogies themselves.

.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

.

And .....? You want to talk about Pixie PROJECTING his stupidity in failing to understand the analogy onto the analogy itself? OK, go ahead, be my guest.

 

[docphin5]

And .....? You want to talk about Pixie PROJECTING his stupidity in failing to understand the analogy onto the analogy itself? OK, go ahead, be my guest.

I was demonstrating how anything anyone writes can be chopped up and distorted to say something other than what was originally written.