Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

[Nickman]

Definition of real physical slavery changes over periods of time. Two thousand years ago, within the kingdom of China, if one spilled a cup of tea to the emoprer of China, they were killed and the system justified it. A thousand years later, if one spilt a cup of tea to the emporer, they got a whip and the system justified it. Given now, if one spills the cup of tea to the emporer, they will have to pay for the dry cleaning.

All people justify slavery within the system that is made at the given time. By all means, If you spilled a cup of tea to a highest authority in North Korea, you'd prabably be imprisoned. But if you spilled a cup of tea to the highest power in South Korea, youll prbabably have to pay for the dry cleaning.

The North Koreans will see that as a strange behavior of ruling, whereas, the South Koreans will see the other side in enslavement as strange behavior of ruling.

Therefore, one has to go to the origin of slavery, which means, attempting to overcome anothers idea or ways of life in any way. Thus forcing or suggesting another one to abide and listen to ones ways can be defined as actual slavery.

If your reffering to the times of the Jews being physically enslaved at the given time, God freed them, so whats your point?

All of what you are saying is wrong, regardless of the "authority" of the emporer. We humans have slowly crawled out of this mentality of slavery. It was wrong back then and is wrong today no matter if it dictated by an emporer or a god. If god were benevolent then he would have cringed at the site of slavery and rebuked it without saying "if a man beats a slave and the slave dies within three days, then the man shall be punished, but if the slave is revived then the man has done no wrong."

I think you are rather speaking in terms of the european nations. Within Amazons, slavery is still evident. Within North Korea as well. It is their way of life, and not many are aware there is freedom bigger than where they stand.

Slavery comes with all shapes and sizes. You have enslaved a car to serve you for your convienience. You have enslaved a dog for your convinience of joy.
You have enslaved your hair, for the convience of your apearance.
In all, slavery only exists to "serve". Therefore, slavery is accepted everywhere but hidden. Slavery of the bible is left allowed only because it is the nature of life.

We are coming out of the slavery within age? No, you are only seeing the surface of things. If you are filled with the physical aspects of life, materialistic and shallow, then you perhaps might have an argument, just maybe.
Or wait, even a concept of well being is a form of slavery from the nutririonist claiming his opinions overcomes yours as to dieting.

Benevelont God is spoken of the Son. Not the Father. Father is of omnipotentency.

No, truth101. You're leaving out the most important piece. Knowledge is power. Those who are enslaved have been sheltered from knowledge. They have been sheltered from truth and justice. Slavery is 99% fear, & 1% physical, figuratively speaking. If a god who is supposed to be benevolent, does not rebuke such, then he is condoning and/or indirectly supporting such behavior.

[stubbornone]

Definition of real physical slavery changes over periods of time. Two thousand years ago, within the kingdom of China, if one spilled a cup of tea to the emoprer of China, they were killed and the system justified it. A thousand years later, if one spilt a cup of tea to the emporer, they got a whip and the system justified it. Given now, if one spills the cup of tea to the emporer, they will have to pay for the dry cleaning.

All people justify slavery within the system that is made at the given time. By all means, If you spilled a cup of tea to a highest authority in North Korea, you'd prabably be imprisoned. But if you spilled a cup of tea to the highest power in South Korea, youll prbabably have to pay for the dry cleaning.

The North Koreans will see that as a strange behavior of ruling, whereas, the South Koreans will see the other side in enslavement as strange behavior of ruling.

Therefore, one has to go to the origin of slavery, which means, attempting to overcome anothers idea or ways of life in any way. Thus forcing or suggesting another one to abide and listen to ones ways can be defined as actual slavery.

If your reffering to the times of the Jews being physically enslaved at the given time, God freed them, so whats your point?

All of what you are saying is wrong, regardless of the "authority" of the emporer. We humans have slowly crawled out of this mentality of slavery. It was wrong back then and is wrong today no matter if it dictated by an emporer or a god. If god were benevolent then he would have cringed at the site of slavery and rebuked it without saying "if a man beats a slave and the slave dies within three days, then the man shall be punished, but if the slave is revived then the man has done no wrong."

I think you are rather speaking in terms of the european nations. Within Amazons, slavery is still evident. Within North Korea as well. It is their way of life, and not many are aware there is freedom bigger than where they stand.

Slavery comes with all shapes and sizes. You have enslaved a car to serve you for your convienience. You have enslaved a dog for your convinience of joy.
You have enslaved your hair, for the convience of your apearance.
In all, slavery only exists to "serve". Therefore, slavery is accepted everywhere but hidden. Slavery of the bible is left allowed only because it is the nature of life.

We are coming out of the slavery within age? No, you are only seeing the surface of things. If you are filled with the physical aspects of life, materialistic and shallow, then you perhaps might have an argument, just maybe.
Or wait, even a concept of well being is a form of slavery from the nutririonist claiming his opinions overcomes yours as to dieting.

Benevelont God is spoken of the Son. Not the Father. Father is of omnipotentency.

No, truth101. You're leaving out the most important piece. Knowledge is power. Those who are enslaved have been sheltered from knowledge. They have been sheltered from truth and justice. Slavery is 99% fear, & 1% physical, figuratively speaking. If a god who is supposed to be benevolent, does not rebuke such, then he is condoning and/or indirectly supporting such behavior.

Do you even bother to read what you write? Or do you simply pass along whatever the FSM whispers into your ear?

Not so civil?

Well, neither is comparing non-slave owners to slavers. Neither is bland propaganda devoid of any intellectualism whatsoever.

I mean, did you stop and think what the implications of what you wrote? Lets tale a look at a couple shall we?

#1 - Are those with the most education, necessarily the most the moral? You know those who posses the best knowledge? Hmmm .. Madolf? Ring any bells? Aldrich Ames? Intelligence lad him to be bored and to spy, essentially committing murder, out of boredom. So are you sure that you want to compare knowledge with morality? Even make it a basis for morality?

#2 - You do realize that Christians go to the same schools you do? That we have the SAME basis of knowledge that you do? Now how exactly are you prone to greater knowledge based insight than ever other human being that happens to have an equivalent education? Hence the repeatedly avoided question about simple arrogance being the basis of this thread? Perhaps?

#3 - Would accurate representation of the gospel ALSO count in the category of knowledge? You know, actually reading something and being motivated by it?

#4 - Would knowledge also include knowing about little things like humbleness ... so that we, in a fit, do not call God himself to task for something we clearly haven't thought through?

Its the atheists on this forum that are SUPPOSED to be making a case, but all I see in response to genuine posts ... are inane stabs that cam best be called propaganda.

After all, God gave us a set of rules and rich history full of those who follow and get it both right and wrong, he gave us science to quantify his teachings and demonstrate the truthfulness of his words, and none of this, not a shread, of any of it is found in empty, bland declaration that attempts to usurp the basis knowledge - because if you claim it, however weakly, that means that your position is fully evidenced and explainable and the opposite is not.

Hence, atheism is a 'greater' morality because it claims to be logical? More so than anyone else?

[TheTruth101]

Definition of real physical slavery changes over periods of time. Two thousand years ago, within the kingdom of China, if one spilled a cup of tea to the emoprer of China, they were killed and the system justified it. A thousand years later, if one spilt a cup of tea to the emporer, they got a whip and the system justified it. Given now, if one spills the cup of tea to the emporer, they will have to pay for the dry cleaning.

All people justify slavery within the system that is made at the given time. By all means, If you spilled a cup of tea to a highest authority in North Korea, you'd prabably be imprisoned. But if you spilled a cup of tea to the highest power in South Korea, youll prbabably have to pay for the dry cleaning.

The North Koreans will see that as a strange behavior of ruling, whereas, the South Koreans will see the other side in enslavement as strange behavior of ruling.

Therefore, one has to go to the origin of slavery, which means, attempting to overcome anothers idea or ways of life in any way. Thus forcing or suggesting another one to abide and listen to ones ways can be defined as actual slavery.

If your reffering to the times of the Jews being physically enslaved at the given time, God freed them, so whats your point?

All of what you are saying is wrong, regardless of the "authority" of the emporer. We humans have slowly crawled out of this mentality of slavery. It was wrong back then and is wrong today no matter if it dictated by an emporer or a god. If god were benevolent then he would have cringed at the site of slavery and rebuked it without saying "if a man beats a slave and the slave dies within three days, then the man shall be punished, but if the slave is revived then the man has done no wrong."

I think you are rather speaking in terms of the european nations. Within Amazons, slavery is still evident. Within North Korea as well. It is their way of life, and not many are aware there is freedom bigger than where they stand.

Slavery comes with all shapes and sizes. You have enslaved a car to serve you for your convienience. You have enslaved a dog for your convinience of joy.
You have enslaved your hair, for the convience of your apearance.
In all, slavery only exists to "serve". Therefore, slavery is accepted everywhere but hidden. Slavery of the bible is left allowed only because it is the nature of life.

We are coming out of the slavery within age? No, you are only seeing the surface of things. If you are filled with the physical aspects of life, materialistic and shallow, then you perhaps might have an argument, just maybe.
Or wait, even a concept of well being is a form of slavery from the nutririonist claiming his opinions overcomes yours as to dieting.

Benevelont God is spoken of the Son. Not the Father. Father is of omnipotentency.

No, truth101. You're leaving out the most important piece. Knowledge is power. Those who are enslaved have been sheltered from knowledge. They have been sheltered from truth and justice. Slavery is 99% fear, & 1% physical, figuratively speaking. If a god who is supposed to be benevolent, does not rebuke such, then he is condoning and/or indirectly supporting such behavior.

Please refer to the post where you quoted, I re edited what the scripture means according to our times.

Slavery is of service. Fear have no room when one adapts. Therefore, slavery is of service. Not of fear to say the least.

[stubbornone]

I think that the key to making people "Christians" realize that they are moral without a god, and that morals are not from their god, is the bible test.

I have shown many Christians the OT verses that they disagree with morally. When we humans look at the bad things in the OT (yes god does very questionable horrible things) we choose what we find to be good and what is bad. Most people when questioned about the law, will throw out the law and only choose ten of those commands. The ten commandments are not bad. There is some good in them. This picking and choosing shows that we can look inthis book that people claim as gods word and dismiss the bad and pick good. We are moral outside of the bible. It is not our moral compass. This can also be done in any scenario and with any book.

Examples would be god not rebuking slavery. We look at slavery as bad. We dismiss this and try to make a special plea for the god to make him moral in this. When we can't possibly make a good argument, we resort to "well god is god who are we?" This to me is evidence that we are the moral standard. We judge the bible on morals everyday. When we see something we don't agree with within its pages, we either dismiss it, change it to mean something else, or claim "god is god". When we see something we do agree with, we say "see I told you he was moral". We are the authors of morality by this simple example.

As quoted from another thread.



Given per say, the people of the spiritual sees the spiritual aspect or the mental aspect of another. The physical matters that you hold as an atheist is only seeing the surface of slavery.

Enslavement comes in all shapes and sizes. Your testimony here to fight for your opinion is a way and form a enslaving anothers mind to adhere or take acknowledge of your ways. In this respect hypocricy can be examined throgh your post as well.

See, there you are trying to justify slavery which is one of my poi ts I made. We either say it is wrong, dismiss it, or justify it. You happen to fall into the last category which makes me question your morality.

Are you even listening to yourself?

You are justifying your superior morality, so called anyway, by throwing slavery in the face of people who obviously neither own or support slavery.

One wonders where atheists such as yourself stand on the modern form of slavery, which is human sexual bondage. Are you one of those atheists who sees nothing wrong with a little visit to a prostitute?

Well, instead of talking in hypotheticals, because that is what morality is - a bunch of increasingly unlikely scenarios in which atheists 'test' people, but never themselves? How about the real world moral questions we face today?

Because is all your morality does is cause you to point disparaging fingers at others, you don;t have morality, you have narcissism.

In his last two posts Nickman has made a cogent argument for the fact that we humans can and have rightfully judged the 'morality' of the God of the Bible, and specifically mentioned slavery.

Divine Insight has made the case that Jesus, as a human, also judged the laws of the Bible.

Your response is to ignore these points and project onto Nickman this idea of atheists agreeing with (sexual) slavery when they have said the opposite.

You've constructed this claim that atheists believe in sexual slavery out of nothing, it's as if you pulled it out of your own . . . uh . . . imagination. You certainly couldn't have extracted it from something they said.

Instead you go on a tirade about atheists supporting prostitution. Did an atheist here suggest prostitution was moral? Did anyone on this forum suggest that?

Several of us have shown that we humans can and should judge the morality of a god of genocide and slavery and that Jesus himself promotes a higher morality (tho' I don't recall he says much about slavery). And your response is to bring up, out of the blue, your fantasy about 'sexual slavery.' Interesting.

Agh, so the oft drug up subject of slavery is the atheists call to 'superior' morality - and now, once again, since we are engaging with selective memory ... lets take yet another journey down the lane of history shall we?

Lets start with Rome. Ever heard of Spartacus? How about the Roman Servile Wars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus

Please, by all means, take a gander at that, and understand that this is what you advocate. Mass suicide.

Fell better? Feel morally superior yet?

Less that a hundred years before Christ we have a major slave revolt, indeed the Jews themselves had already been crushed several times by Roman Legions. The entire Roman Empire was built upon slavery, and the system of retaining that slave based order, from assassination to simple brutality, were immense. Advocating slave rebellion would not only get you killed in a hurry, anyone stupid enough to follow you would be killed right along with you in the most brutal way possible to ensure that the message would get through.

But heh, since atheists are seeking 'truth' through cogent arguments, its only fair at this point to mention that atheists are obviously in favor of mass suicide. Explains a lot about Jim Jones? I digress though ...

So, what do you do if you disagree with slavery AND doing something that will only result in a lot of needless death and only heighten the strangle hold on slavery?

Why, you would have to change THE VERY BASIS OF MORALITY ITSELF!!!!

In the time when people can do nothing, you would preach that those who are stuck in positions they cannot do anything about, accept what they cannot change and whatever hand we are dealt we do the best we can and seek to follow what is moral and right to the utmost of our ability.

We also slip into the narrative a little thing called equality.

Its worth pointing out that atheist contemporaries ACTUALLY wrote during the period as well. I mean here we have atheists listing Democritus as the #1 atheist of all time!

http://brainz.org/50-most-brilliant-atheists-all-time/

And yet, here is what he actually though: "He says that "Equality is everywhere noble," but he is not encompassing enough to include women or slaves in this sentiment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus ... d_politics

But heh, knowledge is power, and the most brilliant atheist of all time apparently supported slavery ... er, even as atheists attempt to shove slavery down Christian throats. Nice.

So, I suppose the more even more 'superior' minded could just advocate pointless rebellion? Perhaps you'd like to advocate the violent overthrow of Wall Street to redistribute wealth as well? I mean, its not like THAT VIOLENT action would result in any response either? So ... great moral picture atheist. Wonderful basis for claiming that atheism is intrinsically against slavery.

Now, lets move forward a bit to the ACTUAL beginnings of the abolition movement.

You remember that part about ALL men being created equal?

Well, it turns out that some people actually read it and attempted to understand it correctly (In sharp contrast to Democritus, who didn't apply it to women or slaves). The first to do so? Quakers.

One is left wondering where the high minded atheists were when those enslaved in backward mentalities and silly dress codes were the ones the first stumble across the precept that, although we make money off of slaves ... its wrong.

And on one side of the Atlantic, we see William Wilberforce (who was earlier reduced to a mere panderer to God rather than an honorable man driven by conviction) who is able to use reason and steadfast determination to drive an entire society to reject slavery write large through the full weight of the British government.

And what a momentous change that was!!! Rather than the full weight of state going into crushing slavery and establishing systems to maintain slaves as property, we have the full weight of state protecting slaves as equal!!!! Amazing what an idea planted centuries earlier can do from germination to full blossom.

On the other side of the Atlantic, we once again see the titanic struggle required to reduce slavery. Two Nations, both equip themselves to the hilt to defend and abolish slavery. More American blood is spilt in that war than any other war America has ever fought. Once again, the roots of abolition begin in with ... Qaukers, and then spread through the American Christian Community. The leaders of the abolitionist movement are almost invariably Christian of one sort of another, with atheist, despite their high mindedness, reduced to ancillary roles.

And at the end ... we have the reduction of slavery.

It took the instruments of state, of government to reduce the crime of slavery. And indeed we can say the same thing about the modern form of slavery, human trafficking - mostly for sexual services. ONLY the government can solve that problem.

Yet we do not have an actual discussion on slavery. We do not get an lessons of slavery and what to do about it. We do not get anything other than atheists stepping on the back of honorable men who fought, and often died, so (once again) they can pull selected quotes out of context to make themselves feel superior for the work of abolitionism done by others?

Nah, this common atheist barb, this deliberately misleading portrayal of atheism as anti-slavery and Christianity as pro-slavery is so deliberately ignorant of Christian doctrine and actual history that it can only be dismissed in the strongest terms possible.

It is exactly this - these flights of fancy and sheer arrogance that have made atheism the least trusted of all faiths - and belies any atheist claims to moral superiority in any way.

After all, simple honesty is a precept in every moral code I have ever seen. That it is totally lacking in atheism's slavery driven Crusade of superiority is telling ... and entirely relevant.

When you run around shoving slavery, of all things, down the throats of people around you BASED SOLELY ON A FAITH CHOICE (a deliberate ignorance of history) ... well, the constant keening of atheist cries of bigotry need to seriously examine themselves.

What else is seeing slavery in Christianity in defiance of history itself other than bigotry? Yet another 'superior' moral trait of atheists?

[TheTruth101]

I think that the key to making people "Christians" realize that they are moral without a god, and that morals are not from their god, is the bible test.

I have shown many Christians the OT verses that they disagree with morally. When we humans look at the bad things in the OT (yes god does very questionable horrible things) we choose what we find to be good and what is bad. Most people when questioned about the law, will throw out the law and only choose ten of those commands. The ten commandments are not bad. There is some good in them. This picking and choosing shows that we can look inthis book that people claim as gods word and dismiss the bad and pick good. We are moral outside of the bible. It is not our moral compass. This can also be done in any scenario and with any book.

Examples would be god not rebuking slavery. We look at slavery as bad. We dismiss this and try to make a special plea for the god to make him moral in this. When we can't possibly make a good argument, we resort to "well god is god who are we?" This to me is evidence that we are the moral standard. We judge the bible on morals everyday. When we see something we don't agree with within its pages, we either dismiss it, change it to mean something else, or claim "god is god". When we see something we do agree with, we say "see I told you he was moral". We are the authors of morality by this simple example.

As quoted from another thread.



Given per say, the people of the spiritual sees the spiritual aspect or the mental aspect of another. The physical matters that you hold as an atheist is only seeing the surface of slavery.

Enslavement comes in all shapes and sizes. Your testimony here to fight for your opinion is a way and form a enslaving anothers mind to adhere or take acknowledge of your ways. In this respect hypocricy can be examined throgh your post as well.

See, there you are trying to justify slavery which is one of my poi ts I made. We either say it is wrong, dismiss it, or justify it. You happen to fall into the last category which makes me question your morality.

Are you even listening to yourself?

You are justifying your superior morality, so called anyway, by throwing slavery in the face of people who obviously neither own or support slavery.

One wonders where atheists such as yourself stand on the modern form of slavery, which is human sexual bondage. Are you one of those atheists who sees nothing wrong with a little visit to a prostitute?

Well, instead of talking in hypotheticals, because that is what morality is - a bunch of increasingly unlikely scenarios in which atheists 'test' people, but never themselves? How about the real world moral questions we face today?

Because is all your morality does is cause you to point disparaging fingers at others, you don;t have morality, you have narcissism.

In his last two posts Nickman has made a cogent argument for the fact that we humans can and have rightfully judged the 'morality' of the God of the Bible, and specifically mentioned slavery.

Divine Insight has made the case that Jesus, as a human, also judged the laws of the Bible.

Your response is to ignore these points and project onto Nickman this idea of atheists agreeing with (sexual) slavery when they have said the opposite.

You've constructed this claim that atheists believe in sexual slavery out of nothing, it's as if you pulled it out of your own . . . uh . . . imagination. You certainly couldn't have extracted it from something they said.

Instead you go on a tirade about atheists supporting prostitution. Did an atheist here suggest prostitution was moral? Did anyone on this forum suggest that?

Several of us have shown that we humans can and should judge the morality of a god of genocide and slavery and that Jesus himself promotes a higher morality (tho' I don't recall he says much about slavery). And your response is to bring up, out of the blue, your fantasy about 'sexual slavery.' Interesting.

Jesus as a human didn't judge the bible. He clearly instructed of the Torah to become a wiser words of wisdom.

The Son is not of higher morals than the Father. The Son in flesh was in communion with the Father at all times. Thus, concluding to 'anything of me is from the Father'.

[Artie]

Everything you say can be summed into saying philosphy relates importantly to God.

Could you address each point in the post instead so I can tell if you have understood them or not?

[stubbornone]

I am curious?

As atheists state that they HATE it when Christians enter into the political spehere, but abolition could not have happened without Christians becoming involved in politics, which to atheists hate more? Slavery or Christians in politics? Or both? Neither? And the entire thing is just a finger pointing charade?

Atheists, please explain? I do not understand your apparent standards, and I do not believe that anyone can follow them.

After all, if as a Christian, I see sexual slavery and attempt to galvanize consensus against it (which, given Danmark's dismissal of it as mere fantasy - its clearly necessary) how exactly does that work as Christian? Since I believe that all men (and women) are God's Children, created in equality and in respect, if I use that basis to energize my fellow Christians, and use simple humanity to further broaden the inclusive nature of the consensus building ... to demand greater government attention, allocation of resources to catch the criminals taking advantage of the system, greater resources allocated for social programs to remove, re-educate, and stabilize the victims of this horror, indeed greater international attention period ... well, would I not be violating the oft quoted 'secularism' that atheists despise so much?

And yet, here you are claiming you are 'superior' in your form of morality, even though you just took a major tool for consensus and morality off the table to reduce the very scourge you preporte to hate for no other reason than because ... its Christian???

So, honest question atheists, which do you hate more? Slavers or Christians?

And what does your answer say about the 'superior' morality you claim?

Again, atheists introduced all of these subjects, please explain your position.

[TheTruth101]

Definition of real physical slavery changes over periods of time. Two thousand years ago, within the kingdom of China, if one spilled a cup of tea to the emoprer of China, they were killed and the system justified it. A thousand years later, if one spilt a cup of tea to the emporer, they got a whip and the system justified it. Given now, if one spills the cup of tea to the emporer, they will have to pay for the dry cleaning.

All people justify slavery within the system that is made at the given time. By all means, If you spilled a cup of tea to a highest authority in North Korea, you'd prabably be imprisoned. But if you spilled a cup of tea to the highest power in South Korea, youll prbabably have to pay for the dry cleaning.

The North Koreans will see that as a strange behavior of ruling, whereas, the South Koreans will see the other side in enslavement as strange behavior of ruling.

Therefore, one has to go to the origin of slavery, which means, attempting to overcome anothers idea or ways of life in any way. Thus forcing or suggesting another one to abide and listen to ones ways can be defined as actual slavery.

If your reffering to the times of the Jews being physically enslaved at the given time, God freed them, so whats your point?

All of what you are saying is wrong, regardless of the "authority" of the emporer. We humans have slowly crawled out of this mentality of slavery. It was wrong back then and is wrong today no matter if it dictated by an emporer or a god. If god were benevolent then he would have cringed at the site of slavery and rebuked it without saying "if a man beats a slave and the slave dies within three days, then the man shall be punished, but if the slave is revived then the man has done no wrong."

I think you are rather speaking in terms of the european nations. Within Amazons, slavery is still evident. Within North Korea as well. It is their way of life, and not many are aware there is freedom bigger than where they stand.

Slavery comes with all shapes and sizes. You have enslaved a car to serve you for your convienience. You have enslaved a dog for your convinience of joy.
You have enslaved your hair, for the convience of your apearance.
In all, slavery only exists to "serve". Therefore, slavery is accepted everywhere but hidden. Slavery of the bible is left allowed only because it is the nature of life.

We are coming out of the slavery within age? No, you are only seeing the surface of things. If you are filled with the physical aspects of life, materialistic and shallow, then you perhaps might have an argument, just maybe.
Or wait, even a concept of well being is a form of slavery from the nutririonist claiming his opinions overcomes yours as to dieting.

Benevelont God is spoken of the Son. Not the Father. Father is of omnipotentency.

No, truth101. You're leaving out the most important piece. Knowledge is power. Those who are enslaved have been sheltered from knowledge. They have been sheltered from truth and justice. Slavery is 99% fear, & 1% physical, figuratively speaking. If a god who is supposed to be benevolent, does not rebuke such, then he is condoning and/or indirectly supporting such behavior.

Everything that you are saying is not coming from a perspective of my notation of the bible. Over and over, I have consistently said 'suffering' is the foundation of the abrahamic religion. Thus evident by the scripture of ' in the kingdom of God, the first will be last, and the last will be first' it is evident within me that the ones that are enslaved now in the physical world will find Gods mercy in eternity.
Slavery is not promoted within God, it is rather allowed because the nature of God is of the spiritual, not the physical, therefore God recognizes a form of emotional slavery from a child to one not having an attentive Father just as important as a man that have gone physical whipping within slavery.
The point here is, slavery is the nature of life. Although you lean upon slavery as a physical punishment, it can be concluded within me that slavery of the hidden is all around us.

You may endorse or neglect slavery from a physical perspective, however, within a person of faith that leans towards the spirit of another being, we establish ourselves as being one with the people in physical enslavement due to the nature that all is a form of hidden enslavement, in turn, making us closest to the having compassion towards another one in physical slavery,and In all, it makes us the actual ones that understand and feel for another one that is under physical slavery as we speak. What i said here is called volunteering or praying for spiritual condemnation as said by Christ.
It is prabably the highest degree of self enslavement, and highest method of one admittance to being a sinner.

The physical aspiration of your complaints of physical slavery only establishes your shallowness of the aspect spoken, in turn making you a talker, that really do not know what you are talking about in the first place.

Be a walker that preach your words, in this case, since you are of the physical aspects of life, conclude to volunteering into physical slavery. Once you have done that, I myself will find the room to give you a fair debate as to your falsely accusations of slavery.

[Artie]

After all, God gave us a set of rules and rich history full of those who follow and get it both right and wrong, he gave us science to quantify his teachings and demonstrate the truthfulness of his words, and none of this, not a shread, of any of it is found in empty, bland declaration that attempts to usurp the basis knowledge - because if you claim it, however weakly, that means that your position is fully evidenced and explainable and the opposite is not.

No, actually evolution evolved rationality and morality such as logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, ethics, conscience, the Golden rule etc. To ensure people who didn't understand or didn't have these qualities justice systems evolved to keep them away from the rest of us. Evolution also evolved brains wired for religion and belief and religions so that other people who didn't have these qualities would live according to them anyway because they believed they came from some god or higher authority.

[stubbornone]

After all, God gave us a set of rules and rich history full of those who follow and get it both right and wrong, he gave us science to quantify his teachings and demonstrate the truthfulness of his words, and none of this, not a shread, of any of it is found in empty, bland declaration that attempts to usurp the basis knowledge - because if you claim it, however weakly, that means that your position is fully evidenced and explainable and the opposite is not.

No, actually evolution evolved rationality and morality such as logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, altruism, love, ethics, conscience, the Golden rule etc. To ensure people who didn't understand or didn't have these qualities justice systems evolved to keep them away from the rest of us. Evolution also evolved brains wired for religion and belief and religions so that other people who didn't have these qualities would live according to them anyway because they believed they came from some god or higher authority.

Evolution did not involve one wit of human rationality. It is nothing more than trial and error, random mutation, and the long term survival of those minimally able to survive and reproduce better than their peers through time. That is it.

The rationalization of evolution you state is nothing more than anthropomorphism.

There is no moral gene. The Human Genome has been mapped.

Your claims are nothing more than creative writing.