"Slavery and beheadings, it is part of our religion"

Yes I think it highly like that it is 'other than' for most of them. I don't think your posts where you claim Jesus Christ is immoral impact them enough to cause any doubts whatsoever.

 

You can't answer my questions, but I shouldn't do the same to your questions so here I go: that's a good question, I suppose our consciousness is a slave to our brain. But of course THAT "slavery" would not be like the slavery that Jesus accepted, see below. I'm talking about slavery that is a complete felony today, because of course it's immoral. My consciousness being a "slave" to my body would not be a felony.

Can you condemn Jesus for accepting slavery? I can, and I bet crank can too. It's really not that hard to do....one just has to be very moral to do it.

I apologize for not answering as many of your questions as I should in the past.


-----------------------------


Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

 

From the link:

Their tactics carry an outsized intimidation factor to be sure. All those people who claim 'Islam is a religion of peace' do not seem remotely capable of standing up to the hardened jihadis. Where are they? What are they doing to convince the jihadis of their woeful misunderstandings?

We're not convinced, not by a long shot. The moderates look pretty much like fence-sitters, waiting to see which side wins, capable of going either way.

 

Correct, not until they overcome their fear of Jesus, and start to think morally, instead of fearfully.

 

A man has got to have his sex slaves. The real ones just don't look as good as the one finds on tumblr...did I just type that for all to see?

Darn.

 

I'm impressed with your mind.
Yes, the moderates won't stand against Sharia Law nearly as much as we'd like, that's for sure. After all, if Sharia was good enough for the best man of all time (Mohammad, *gag, cough*) then they feel it's good enough for them.

 

In other words, you want them to engage with you, and to keep on engaging every single damn day in a new thread ad infinitum because you throw out the reasoning of a 12 year old on a playground? Maybe that 'loving role model' taught them to be smart enough to know when someone is manipulating them into enabling an addictive behavior pattern.

 

To the Muslim male, yes, as it's in the Qur'an, and they claim there's even a copy of the Qur'an in heaven. So of course they CAN take it literally, as of course god would mean what he says, and say what he means, and they can take him at his word, they believe. Mohammad advocated sex slavery, so who are they to question a religious book?

 

Or maybe your premises in this whole line are inadequate, inconclusive and erroneous. Maybe they aren't afraid of Jesus, already think morally and you should rethink this whole thing again.

 

I've been doing this for almost 8000 posts now, and I've learned that no, they can't defeat Modern Secular Humanism, THAT'S why they don't try much of the time. Superstition/magic can't beat science/reality.

 

Ok, then show us where exactly they've condemned Jesus for accepting slavery.

[Answer: Christians are not moral enough to do that, or I'd have seen it long ago.]

- - - Updated - - -

You can't condemn Jesus' acceptance of slavery so I'm left to believe that you are a religious person masquerading as an atheist.

 

I see your point, and it's a reasonable one. But no, the MAIN reason is that to answer my question straight on, honestly, would damage their faith. Mission accomplished.

 

If they were moral they'd say that Jesus was immoral for accepting slavery. I do....they don't.

 

Lol, there you go again. You presuppose that your posts represent ' modern secular humanism'. You presuppose that Christians here want to defeat modern secular humanism, and you presuppose that those Christians that do, will see your 4000 posts are representing some substantial threat to the defeat that they seek, and that they see responding as the best strategic method for defeat. You don't have that logic thing down yet.

 

Ok, let me at least have you prove one of my points to you: on some forum ask the question "Is it more moral to throw Jews into ovens, or into a “lake of fire”?
....and you'll see that no Christians can honestly answer that question....because of course to answer it honestly they'd know they'd be admitting that Jesus is less moral than even Hitler was, so their entire world view would be shattered - in utter ruins, clearly. The truth hurts, sometimes, I'm afraid.


Edit: but maybe YOU should try and answer that question first, for us, just so we know you're not a theist masquerading as an atheist, like I suspected.

 

You are not entitle to an answer to your questions. If you make assumptions based on the fact that you did not get answers that were to your liking, you probably wanted to make those assumptions anyway because they fit your agenda.

You do not know what I can or cannot do or can or cannot condemn, you only know what I did or did not do or condemn here in this thread at your bidding. You cannot know whether I am or am not a religious person and you are not 'left' to believe anything. You choose what you do or do not believe, based on your agenda.

 

"I condemn Jesus" would have been much shorter and easier to write.

 

So Christ is less moral than hitler was? LOL.

You do understand of course that all not Christians believe as the fundamentalists do, I hope. There are different sects, and some do not believe anyone is thrown into a literal lake of fire to be tortured forever and ever. Some of then believe that that hell fire is here on earth, and is what one is in if you don't repent, or change ones mind about being such a beastly selfish, violent human being, hurting others to self gratify. But then this sort of hell is like karma, you do it to yourself. You reap in one what or the other what you personally sowed by your actions. And then you get another shot at it in the next life. Human life, existence then is a school, where you learn, and when you finally get the message, you no longer have to be reborn again, to live on this plane, where there is pleasure, but deep suffering as well, hell, if you will.

Now whether this other view is true or not, I cannot say, but it solves the problem of Christ being worse than hitler. And so hitler would be worse for throwing people into the ovens, than a person who suffers on earth from loss of loved ones, anxiety, and other great psychological suffering. It is so hellish for some people that they will commit suicide to escape the hell of human existence.

So perhaps Christ was just telling people that they didn't have to suffer hell, and then showed them the way out of that. No one else showed them, so he was a savior of sorts. And obviously if people didn't listen to him, they would be in hell. But it's all on them, not him. Karma, from the Buddhist and hindu point of view.

So when you paint Christians with a broad brush, that tries to make em all fundamentalists, well you are making for yourself a target that is easy to hit. Some Christians have much more sophisticated beliefs.

 

There's allegedly one man, right now, as I write this, would could clear this all up for us once and for all. If you had those powers would you educate us right now? I would, and I'm sure Richard Dawkins would, and so would Sam Harris, and crank....what about you, if you had those super powers would you clear that up for us right now? Jesus won't, of course, but how about you?

 

It sure would but once you start adding in all the subsequent questions you will be inclined to direct along with more 'dares' I am not sure the process would be short at all. I always taught my kids never to cooperate with a kid who dares them. The fact that manipulative tactics were employed, suggests something they don't want to be involved in with someone they don't want to encourage with success.

 

I cannot accept your notion of the type of slavery that Jesus was in reference to. Why? Because you never talked to Jesus and had Him clarify what type of slavery He was talking about. Remember, Jesus taught spiritual matters and to Him, it was the spiritual masters that enslaved man that he was speaking about with most concern. He was not interested in the physical slavery concept because He knew that any man or woman who did not like the notion of being a slave had the option of dieing in order to end that physical slavery. In this modern age, many find themselves enslaved to the notion of being financially rich and subsequently forsake everything in an attempt to gain that richness... which richness thus defined is not an everlasting richness: However, He taught to free yourself from spiritual slavery as such freedom then attained is an everlasting richness.... a richness of the spirit. Financial richness can be stolen or otherwise taken from you, but spiritual richness cannot be taken from you. Yes! He used analogies for the purpose of providing a means of comprehending what He was talking about. Thus His comment "it is easier for a camel to enter in through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.". Knowing that most men who seek after riches of this world are less likely to forsake those riches in order to obtain a key to the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven.

As above, so below. Jesus acknowledged slavery on earth. He does not say that He condones slavery He just advises to accept it in the same manner as one is to accept the spiritual slavery that some will find themselves the victim.

 

Why stop there? You can find in the Bible where slavery and stoning (and not with marijuana) are indeed part of the religion of many of us.

 

All that you wrote doesn't matter, because if, just say, if, Jesus came to us right now and hypothetically, just for argument's sake, said the did approve of regular slavery, where one person would own another person, and beat another person, just like typical slavery, you wouldn't condemn him ANYWAY! So we can argue all day as to what "slavery" we mean, but in the end you (correct me if I'm wrong of course!) couldn't condemn him even if he flatly said to you that he supported the worse kind of slavery, now can you? I could, of course, because I can condemn immorality when I see it, but as my posts show, religious people simply can't do that.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you have such low morals, may I ask?

 

Don't you agree that it is a false dichotomy to indicate that there is only your solution or inaction that are on the table? Peace talks and diplomacy are slow tools, but they're more efficient than whacking others over the head when it comes to making peace.

If I was able, I'd draw my line way before lives were at stake, but you've yet to convince me that any of the actions you have suggested (explicitly or not) would have the effect you seem to desire. In practice, all changing the words will do is create new cults that are at odds with everyone.

 

Why do you presume I have low morals, my I ask?