Post Reply
Page 498 of 807  •  Prev 1 ... 496 497 498 499 500 ... 807 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The 'existence' of gods
3 years ago  ::  Jun 09, 2012 - 10:27PM #4971
mountain_man
Posts: 40,581

Jun 9, 2012 -- 9:34PM, christine3 wrote:

Me neither actually.  Like serial killers cannibals.


They're still human.


No, I don't have much respect for that.  Or Al-Assad over there.  The likes of those kinds who have no respect for human life, maybe it's better they are gone.


That makes you one of them.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 09, 2012 - 10:39PM #4972
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:26PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jun 9, 2012 -- 9:29PM, Ken wrote:

I don't see why they wouldn't.


I knew you wouldn't. We've disagreed on this before.



Have we? Yikes!

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 09, 2012 - 10:53PM #4973
christine3
Posts: 7,753

Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:27PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jun 9, 2012 -- 9:34PM, christine3 wrote:

Me neither actually.  Like serial killers cannibals.


They're still human.


No, I don't have much respect for that.  Or Al-Assad over there.  The likes of those kinds who have no respect for human life, maybe it's better they are gone.


That makes you one of them.




What do you mean by that?  

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 09, 2012 - 11:09PM #4974
mountain_man
Posts: 40,581

Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:39PM, Ken wrote:

Have we? Yikes!


Senior moment? Cool

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 09, 2012 - 11:56PM #4975
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jun 9, 2012 -- 11:09PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jun 9, 2012 -- 10:39PM, Ken wrote:

Have we? Yikes!


Senior moment?



I'm afraid so.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 10, 2012 - 6:21PM #4976
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

You two are great, you make me smile Laughing

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 12:41AM #4977
El Cid
Posts: 1,858

Apr 14, 2012 -- 3:06PM, Ken wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:10PM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

ec: According to Plutarch, the greeks kept their women under lock and key. They had to have permission from their husbands to leave the house. Christian women can come and go when they please and can initate divorce from their husbands if he commits adultery among other things. Christianity has greatly raised the status of women far beyond the greeks.


Plutarch was referring to Greek customs in the fifth century BCE and earlier. Specifically, he was referring to upper-class Greek customs - lower-class Greeks couldn't afford the luxury of keeping their women locked up. During the Hellenistic era Greek women came to enjoy far more liberty, and this was carried even further under the Roman Empire. The Romans even established a special form of marriage that allowed women to retain their own property, divorce their husbands at will, and do as they pleased without their husbands' consent. By the first century this had become the dominant form of marriage.



ec: Evidence?


ken: It's cute how you ask for evidence only when you can't think of a snappy retort.



I notice you still did not provide any evidence.


Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:10PM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

ec: The Romans had even worse rules for women. Under Caesar Augustus, husbands had the power of life and death over their wives and children.


ken: No, they didn't. Those laws dated from the early Republic. By Augustus' time they had either been superceded by later legislation or were simply ignored. The special form of marriage (marriage sine manu as opposed to marriage cum manu, which was virtually extinct by the end of the first century BCE) also served to greatly diminish the husband's power over his wife and children.


ec: Nevertheless, there was a much higher rate of female infanticide among the Romans. While the early Christians opposed infanticide for both males and females. Augustus confirmed the power of the husband when he passed lex Julia adulteriis in 18 BC.


ken: And yet when Christians had the power to abolish infanticide they failed to do so. Valentian's law of 374 was routinely ignored and led to few prosecutions. It had little effect on infanticide, even among Christians. Until the late Middle Ages infanticide remained widespread throughout Christendom - in Rome, women drowned unwanted newborns in the Tiber in broad daylight and nobody stopped them. In Germany, women had a legal right to commit infanticide.


The Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis was a notorious failure, rarely if ever enforced.



No, Justinian in the 6th century with his Justinian Code says, "Those who expose children, possibly hoping they will die, and those who use the potion of teh abortionist, are subject to the full penalty of the law, both civil and eccleastical, for murder."


Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:10PM, El Cid wrote:


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

ken: The position of women improved as a direct result of the secularization of Western society. As the influence of traditional Christianity ebbed from more and more areas of social life, more humane and enlightened values came to be adopted in those areas. Even today, attitudes are far more humane and enlightened in highly secularized regions and nations than in regions and nations still in thrall to traditional Christianity.



Those countries though now more secular than in the past, were all nations founded on Christian principles and influenced by the Christian teaching of men and women being equally created in the image of God. But Countries such as Japan, China, and Muslim countries generally treat women very poorly. And Japan and China are very secular.


 


ec: In 374 AD the Christian emperor Valentinian I finally repealed 1000 year old patria potestas. The ancient practice of marrying prepubertal brides gradually diminished under the influence of Chistianity. Research has shown that Christian women married later than their pagan Roman counterparts. Christianity made divorce more difficult so that men could not just get rid of their wife when they got tired of them. Christians were instrumental in ending polygamy, thereby greatly increasing the happiness and independence of women in marriage. The first women rights activists in America were mostly Christians, such as Susan B. Anthony.


ken: Valentinian's law was a failure. It was never customary to consummate a marriage with a prepubertal bride until she reached puberty - the marriage was in effect a betrothal and the groom was usually prepubertal as well. Such marriages continued among the aristocracy until the early modern era. The Christian ban on divorce meant that women couldn't free themselves from bad husbands.



There was no complete Christian ban on divorce until after 300 AD when it became the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to this divorce was allowed in the church for adultery, phyiscal abuse/abandonment, and religiously mixed marriages. And these allowances were returned after the Reformation in the protestant churches.


ken: Polygamy was not a Roman practice.



It was practiced among some jews and pagans and Christians helped end it among westerners. 


Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:10PM, El Cid wrote:

ken: It doesn't matter what women's rights activists in American were - the concept of women's rights was a secular ideal, not a Christian one. After all, most of the opposition to women's rights came from Christians as well. It still does today.



Those women got their ideas from their Christian faith, the idea that man and woman are both created in the image of God, just as civil rights leaders such as MLK got their ideas from Christian teaching. Evidence that Christians are presently against women's rights? 


[uote author=34258661 post=518606663]


Mar 19, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Ken wrote:

ken: Compare New England to the South. The latter would still have chattel slavery if the rest of the country hadn't forced them to give it up.


ec: No, even in the 19th century most intelligent southerners like Robert E. Lee and Mary Chestnut knew that chattel slavery was on its way out eventually because of its incompatiblity with Christianity and the coming of the industrial revolution.


ken: Don't be silly. The South regarded slavery as a positive good and fought a major war in an attempt to preserve it. After they lost the war, Southerners still contrived to keep their black population in a condition as close to slavery as possible.



No, that was primarily the political leadership at the time. Most southerners did not own slaves and many though not most knew it would end and wanted it to gradually end as the people I referenced above. 




 

Moderated by Jcarlinbn on Jun 11, 2012 - 01:25AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 1:10AM #4978
El Cid
Posts: 1,858

Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:29AM, Ken wrote:


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ken: You have no idea what the majority believed. Their opinions were not recorded.


ec: Given that that was the view of Aristotle, his popularity and reputation most likely was accepted by most Greeks.


ken: Most Greeks were unacquainted with philosophy. Among the few who took an interest in it, Aristoteleanism was not the most popular. Stoicism and Epicureanism were until the third century; after that, Neoplatonism.



Evidence?


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ken: The idea that God looks like a human being is common to many cultures. It in no way entails the concept of universal brotherhood.


ec: But Moses and the ancient hebrews believed that all humans are the created children of God and therefore brothers and sisters.


ken: Moses believed nothing. He was not an historical person.  Like almost everyone else at the time, the ancient Hebrews thought in tribal terms. The Greeks were the first to conceive of universal brotherhood.



The evidence says otherwise, Moses believed it in 1400 BC, which was before the Greeks believed it.


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ken: Ten Commandments don't mention it either.


ec: Yes, the ten commandments plainly implied a right to life, ie "you shall not murder", a right to property, ie "you shall not steal", and a right to a fair trial, ie "you shall not bear false witness".


ken: The Ten Commandments are divided between laws that are purely theological and therefore worthless, and laws common to every human community. There is no implication of universal brotherhood.



Fraid so, I just demonstrated it, and you failed to refute it.


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ken: Paul's recommendations about the treatment of slaves were not revolutionary. They merely reflect the views of the Stoics, which had been popular among the upper classes for centuries. By the first century CE most Greek and Roman slaveowners regarded them as sound practice.


Well you didn't provide any references, but even if I give that to you, Paul popularized those views to the middle and lower classes as they converted. And it WAS revolutionary among the Jews.


ken: Prior to the fourth century, hardly anybody converted. Christianity did not become popular until after the conversion of Constantine.



There were thousands of conversions as recorded in the book of Acts. Members of the Praetorian Guard in Rome were converted also. Of course, depending on what you mean by popular, Christians did not get close to being the majority until after Constantine.


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ec:  Debt slaves and indentured servants were very similar, both worked for their eventual freedom. No, foreign slaves that had lived in Israel were also freed, see Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 23:9. Permanent slavery would have been oppression of sojourners and foreigners. POW slaves were not freed however.


Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 23:9 are referring to free foreign residents, not slaves.Bondslaves, who were of freign origin, were not freed. See Leviticus 25:44 - 46.


25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you, you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.


25:45 Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property.


25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.


ec: Those verses you quote are referring to the foreigners and sojourners RESIDING in Israel. So the verses in Exodus 23:9, Lev. 19:33-34, and Ex. 22:22-24, apply and therefore in order to comply with these laws, the servitude had to be voluntary.


ken: Leviticus states explicitly that slaves purchased from foreign nations and resident foreigners can be permanently enslaved. Face it - the Hebrews practiced slavery and had no objection to it. The same was true of Christians. They were no better than anyone else. I am nauseated by these feeble attempts to defend Judeo-Christian attitudes toward slavery as somehow superior and enlightened. They were not. The only superior and enlightened attitude toward slavery is one of complete disapproval. Christians should have been forbidden to own slaves.



No, you cannot just pick and choose what verses you want to believe just because you get nauseated at the superiority of Christianity and Judaism, foreigners residing in Israel COULD not be permanent slaves as stated aboev that would be oppression which was prohibited. 


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:


ken: The Jubilee ceased to be observed after the Babylonian exile, and I am not aware that Paul suggested reviving it.


ec: Officially that is true, but as a hebrew he believed in the principle of it.


ken: Where does he say so? You are not entitled to conclude that he believed in the principle because he was Jewish. After all, he was a very bad Jew who betrayed his religion.


ec: No, he believed that Christ FULFILLED Judaism.


ken: And that is how he betrayed his religion. Good Jews have never believed that.





True jews have always believed that. Remember as God has said in his Word, a true hebrew is of the heart not tradition and heritage.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 2:28AM #4979
steven_guy
Posts: 11,751

Jun 11, 2012 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 15, 2012 -- 9:29AM, Ken wrote:


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ken: You have no idea what the majority believed. Their opinions were not recorded.


ec: Given that that was the view of Aristotle, his popularity and reputation most likely was accepted by most Greeks.


ken: Most Greeks were unacquainted with philosophy. Among the few who took an interest in it, Aristoteleanism was not the most popular. Stoicism and Epicureanism were until the third century; after that, Neoplatonism.



Evidence?


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ken: The idea that God looks like a human being is common to many cultures. It in no way entails the concept of universal brotherhood.


ec: But Moses and the ancient hebrews believed that all humans are the created children of God and therefore brothers and sisters.


ken: Moses believed nothing. He was not an historical person.  Like almost everyone else at the time, the ancient Hebrews thought in tribal terms. The Greeks were the first to conceive of universal brotherhood.



The evidence says otherwise, Moses believed it in 1400 BC, which was before the Greeks believed it.


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ken: Ten Commandments don't mention it either.


ec: Yes, the ten commandments plainly implied a right to life, ie "you shall not murder", a right to property, ie "you shall not steal", and a right to a fair trial, ie "you shall not bear false witness".


ken: The Ten Commandments are divided between laws that are purely theological and therefore worthless, and laws common to every human community. There is no implication of universal brotherhood.



Fraid so, I just demonstrated it, and you failed to refute it.


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ken: Paul's recommendations about the treatment of slaves were not revolutionary. They merely reflect the views of the Stoics, which had been popular among the upper classes for centuries. By the first century CE most Greek and Roman slaveowners regarded them as sound practice.


Well you didn't provide any references, but even if I give that to you, Paul popularized those views to the middle and lower classes as they converted. And it WAS revolutionary among the Jews.


ken: Prior to the fourth century, hardly anybody converted. Christianity did not become popular until after the conversion of Constantine.



There were thousands of conversions as recorded in the book of Acts. Members of the Praetorian Guard in Rome were converted also. Of course, depending on what you mean by popular, Christians did not get close to being the majority until after Constantine.


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:

ec:  Debt slaves and indentured servants were very similar, both worked for their eventual freedom. No, foreign slaves that had lived in Israel were also freed, see Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 23:9. Permanent slavery would have been oppression of sojourners and foreigners. POW slaves were not freed however.


Leviticus 19:33-34 and Exodus 23:9 are referring to free foreign residents, not slaves.Bondslaves, who were of freign origin, were not freed. See Leviticus 25:44 - 46.


25:44 As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you, you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you.


25:45 Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property.


25:46 You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly.


ec: Those verses you quote are referring to the foreigners and sojourners RESIDING in Israel. So the verses in Exodus 23:9, Lev. 19:33-34, and Ex. 22:22-24, apply and therefore in order to comply with these laws, the servitude had to be voluntary.


ken: Leviticus states explicitly that slaves purchased from foreign nations and resident foreigners can be permanently enslaved. Face it - the Hebrews practiced slavery and had no objection to it. The same was true of Christians. They were no better than anyone else. I am nauseated by these feeble attempts to defend Judeo-Christian attitudes toward slavery as somehow superior and enlightened. They were not. The only superior and enlightened attitude toward slavery is one of complete disapproval. Christians should have been forbidden to own slaves.



No, you cannot just pick and choose what verses you want to believe just because you get nauseated at the superiority of Christianity and Judaism, foreigners residing in Israel COULD not be permanent slaves as stated aboev that would be oppression which was prohibited. 


Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:38AM, Ken wrote:


ken: The Jubilee ceased to be observed after the Babylonian exile, and I am not aware that Paul suggested reviving it.


ec: Officially that is true, but as a hebrew he believed in the principle of it.


ken: Where does he say so? You are not entitled to conclude that he believed in the principle because he was Jewish. After all, he was a very bad Jew who betrayed his religion.


ec: No, he believed that Christ FULFILLED Judaism.


ken: And that is how he betrayed his religion. Good Jews have never believed that.





True jews have always believed that. Remember as God has said in his Word, a true hebrew is of the heart not tradition and heritage.




Life is short and posts that are this long and convoluted are hardly worth sorting out.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 11, 2012 - 5:25AM #4980
Blü
Posts: 25,272

Cid


I agree with Steven.


Why do you keep reproducing texts in your posts that have become irrelevant to what you're presently saying?


Why isn't your aim to make your posts as legible, intelligible and succinct as you can?


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 498 of 807  •  Prev 1 ... 496 497 498 499 500 ... 807 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook