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]

I used to have a hypothesis, before I became and atheist, that was a way to explain why there was so much bad in the bible. It was a last ditch effort to make sense of it and it went something like this.

I thought that maybe god made the bible an example of bad and if we can see the bad in it and not justify it, then we are fulfilling the purpose he made with his holy book. Those that justified it were lost and didn't see morallity for what it truly is.

Interesting. I see it much more simply. The Bible is a book written by men. They are hopelessly mired in their time and place. They do not speak for God. They speak for themselves and their necessarily limited perspective as they try to understand God.

As such, institutions like slavery and racism were not questioned. They were as much a part of their world as grass needing water and sunlight. They did not have an eternal perspective and projected that limited view on the God they tried to understand.

I don't think that way anymore obviously and I am certain that they were just men and no god is even in the picture. They were products of their time. When a person is coming out and questioning though, we tend to try and justify all we can until we can no longer believe.

[TheTruth101]

I used to have a hypothesis, before I became and atheist, that was a way to explain why there was so much bad in the bible. It was a last ditch effort to make sense of it and it went something like this.

I thought that maybe god made the bible an example of bad and if we can see the bad in it and not justify it, then we are fulfilling the purpose he made with his holy book. Those that justified it were lost and didn't see morallity for what it truly is.

Interesting. I see it much more simply. The Bible is a book written by men. They are hopelessly mired in their time and place. They do not speak for God. They speak for themselves and their necessarily limited perspective as they try to understand God.

As such, institutions like slavery and racism were not questioned. They were as much a part of their world as grass needing water and sunlight. They did not have an eternal perspective and projected that limited view on the God they tried to understand.

Bible was written by men through Gods orders. In due meaning, they were in communion with God.

Bottom of your post, I will answer and argue your point scientifically here.

I repeadedly said God is involved with dreams on this board from day one.

It is clearly said in the Bible that Jesus comes like a lightning (electricity)that flashes from east to west.(reaction)

Scientifically when we dream our brains consist of reactions(east to west) of electrons.(electricity)

I have said again from day one that dreams are much like eternity. And again, freemasons reference eternity and God as the third eye. Dreams is the third eye because the only time we see when our physical two eyes are closed is when we dream.


Certainly they didn't have science technology back then to know of reactions of electrons occurring when we dream.

So, it is argued over here that the Word is timeless and was true.


The question rather is, what will all the Atheist do with all the blasphemy that they have committed to the Son of God?

[stubbornone]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

I wonder why I wrote this a forth time when its just going to be ignored by atheists who are intent on accusing, slyly or directly of claiming that a failure to condemn slavery means you support it? ....

Yes, Stubb, I will not slyly but directly state that when we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe, who is supposedly loving, omniscient and omnipotent, and has given mankind a code of conduct as detailed as that in Leviticus and he fails to condemn slavery, he is indeed responsible for supporting it.

But we need not look at what that God supports by omission, we can look to Genesis 9:25, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

[NIV]

That's simple danmark. What joy would the Saints have in eternity if we don't have servants.

Kings of Kings, and all Kings had slaves or servants. God is of Power. Mens Power exists within hierarchy.

Any Christians out there care to comment on "theTruth's" assertion that slavery is just fine, since it benefits God and the 'Saints?'

Why should we?

Are you commenting on Nickman's claim that the explanation of Higher and Lower Law, which is part of our doctrine, is fallacious?

Indeed, you are a lawyer, so how do you craft a perfect rule vs. guns and the need to protect society from guns?

Go ahead, make the perfect rule.

Of course we know what happens, don't we? We craft rules, and just like the ancient Jews, people find loop holes and conditions and simply walk around the rules until we close them with new rules, which open up yet different rules ... and America still has guns. So does just about any country that legitimately wants to overthrow its government, even when they ban weapons.

So, how do you negotiate that with a law? With a set of laws that makes all conditions and contexts apparent?

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36)

You don't.

You give a principle which would be, "All gun owners should take the greatest responsibility and care to ensure that guns are used appropriately and lawfully, and failure to do so will result in consequences (which we see) and people being held responsible for their failures."

Welcome to the higher law wherein you don;t have to explicitly spell out each and every law, particularly if spelling it out will lead to Roman legions butchering entire villages to eradicate the teaching.

So, we see once again, the demonstration of the limitations of morality through rules (a point made in the OT thousands of years ago), and apparently, since hyperbole is the game today, its clear that atheists would rather people commit mass suicide than exercise the better of valor when under the direct threat of Rome. Would that be something you would consider to be an accurate and well thought our criticism of atheism? Or merely a poke in the proverbial eye?

One can only conclude that atheists have no qualms sending innocent people to their deaths, which is of course better than life as a slave - but, for some reason, we don;t remember the words of Spartacus as we do the Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, or Jesus.

But I am sure you are onto something, why did God only give ten commandments? Why didn't he hand down 7,000 (Heck, lets make it 7 million) stone tablets that would address everything?

Maybe because we are down here to learn ... and being a slave to rules without thought is a bad way to be wise and moral?

You;d almost think this stuff was of divine origin or something?

[stubbornone]

I used to have a hypothesis, before I became and atheist, that was a way to explain why there was so much bad in the bible. It was a last ditch effort to make sense of it and it went something like this.

I thought that maybe god made the bible an example of bad and if we can see the bad in it and not justify it, then we are fulfilling the purpose he made with his holy book. Those that justified it were lost and didn't see morallity for what it truly is.

Interesting. I see it much more simply. The Bible is a book written by men. They are hopelessly mired in their time and place. They do not speak for God. They speak for themselves and their necessarily limited perspective as they try to understand God.

As such, institutions like slavery and racism were not questioned. They were as much a part of their world as grass needing water and sunlight. They did not have an eternal perspective and projected that limited view on the God they tried to understand.

I don't think that way anymore obviously and I am certain that they were just men and no god is even in the picture. They were products of their time. When a person is coming out and questioning though, we tend to try and justify all we can until we can no longer believe.

Ironically enough, despite not being able to disprove God, you might just think the same applies to atheism or something?

Oh wait, it does.

And terribly relevant to the discussion too boot ...

[Danmark]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

I wonder why I wrote this a forth time when its just going to be ignored by atheists who are intent on accusing, slyly or directly of claiming that a failure to condemn slavery means you support it? ....

Yes, Stubb, I will not slyly but directly state that when we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe, who is supposedly loving, omniscient and omnipotent, and has given mankind a code of conduct as detailed as that in Leviticus and he fails to condemn slavery, he is indeed responsible for supporting it.

But we need not look at what that God supports by omission, we can look to Genesis 9:25, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

[NIV]

That's simple danmark. What joy would the Saints have in eternity if we don't have servants.

Kings of Kings, and all Kings had slaves or servants. God is of Power. Mens Power exists within hierarchy.

Any Christians out there care to comment on "theTruth's" assertion that slavery is just fine, since it benefits God and the 'Saints?'

Why should we?

Are you commenting on Nickman's claim that the explanation of Higher and Lower Law, which is part of our doctrine, is fallacious?

Indeed, you are a lawyer, so how do you craft a perfect rule vs. guns and the need to protect society from guns?

Go ahead, make the perfect rule.

I was asking if you agreed with theTruth's apology for slavery.

Yes, I can make a rule. I think the 13th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution will suffice:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Paul in Romans seems to disagree with you about the law and sin. In a rather odd and confusing passage he says:

Romans 7:7-8:
7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, oI would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if pthe law had not said, “You shall not covet.� 8 But sin, qseizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. rFor apart from the law, sin lies dead.

Here and in other passages in the Bible there is the sense that God gave man the law, so he would know he was doing wrong.

Yet 'god' omitted slavery. theTruth seems to think slavery is justified. I asked you to comment on theTruth's position. I think I can understand why you declined.

We mere humans consider slavery evil, a horrible evil that degrades people, that dehumanizes them. Yet 'god' thought merely being jealous of another's possessions [THOU SHALL NOT COVET] was such a horrible evil he included it in the Ten Commandments. Yet this alleged 'god' said nothing about slavery.

The failure to denounce slavery is hardly some minor detail that might have been included in a list of some 7000 prohibitions. Surely it is more important than telling people not to eat beef with milk at the same meal.

Yet 'god' says nothing about slavery. Why? Because there was no god. The laws given were those of men, and they had no problem with slavery. This is not just a Biblical truth [Old Testament to Christians]; slavery is justified in the New Testament as well. In Philemon Paul refers to the slave Onesimus. Certainly Paul makes a plea to the slave's owner, but falls far short of calling slavery a sin or condemning the master for owning a slave. Paul suggests that 'perhaps' Philemon might give Onesimus his freedom, but even that comes only because the slave has become a 'brother in Christ.'

I am not quick to condemn Paul for this. His suggestion is loving, CONSIDERING HIS TIME AND PLACE. But that is my point. The Bible is a document of man's, not god's. It is limited to Earthly considerations. It is not an eternal document of a God's. It reflects the understanding of men, men restricted by their culture, their time, their place.

BTW, don't you agree that ending an argument with a challenge to 'Cowboy' is unnecessary and suggests personalizing the argument?

[TheTruth101]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

I wonder why I wrote this a forth time when its just going to be ignored by atheists who are intent on accusing, slyly or directly of claiming that a failure to condemn slavery means you support it? ....

Yes, Stubb, I will not slyly but directly state that when we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe, who is supposedly loving, omniscient and omnipotent, and has given mankind a code of conduct as detailed as that in Leviticus and he fails to condemn slavery, he is indeed responsible for supporting it.

But we need not look at what that God supports by omission, we can look to Genesis 9:25, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

[NIV]

That's simple danmark. What joy would the Saints have in eternity if we don't have servants.

Kings of Kings, and all Kings had slaves or servants. God is of Power. Mens Power exists within hierarchy.

Any Christians out there care to comment on "theTruth's" assertion that slavery is just fine, since it benefits God and the 'Saints?'

Why should we?

Are you commenting on Nickman's claim that the explanation of Higher and Lower Law, which is part of our doctrine, is fallacious?

Indeed, you are a lawyer, so how do you craft a perfect rule vs. guns and the need to protect society from guns?

Go ahead, make the perfect rule.

I was asking if you agreed with theTruth's apology for slavery.

Yes, I can make a rule. I think the 13th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution will suffice:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Paul in Romans seems to disagree with you about the law and sin. In a rather odd and confusing passage he says:

Romans 7:7-8:
7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, oI would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if pthe law had not said, “You shall not covet.� 8 But sin, qseizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. rFor apart from the law, sin lies dead.

Here and in other passages in the Bible there is the sense that God gave man the law, so he would know he was doing wrong.

Yet 'god' omitted slavery. theTruth seems to think slavery is justified. I asked you to comment on theTruth's position. I think I can understand why you declined.

We mere humans consider slavery evil, a horrible evil that degrades people, that dehumanizes them. Yet 'god' thought merely being jealous of another's possessions [THOU SHALL NOT COVET] was such a horrible evil he included it in the Ten Commandments. Yet this alleged 'god' said nothing about slavery.

The failure to denounce slavery is hardly some minor detail that might have been included in a list of some 7000 prohibitions. Surely it is more important than telling people not to eat beef with milk at the same meal.

Yet 'god' says nothing about slavery. Why? Because there was no god. The laws given were those of men, and they had no problem with slavery. This is not just a Biblical truth [Old Testament to Christians]; slavery is justified in the New Testament as well. In Philemon Paul refers to the slave Onesimus. Certainly Paul makes a plea to the slave's owner, but falls far short of calling slavery a sin or condemning the master for owning a slave. Paul suggests that 'perhaps' Philemon might give Onesimus his freedom, but even that comes only because the slave has become a 'brother in Christ.'

I am not quick to condemn Paul for this. His suggestion is loving, CONSIDERING HIS TIME AND PLACE. But that is my point. The Bible is a document of man's, not god's. It is limited to Earthly considerations. It is not an eternal document of a God's. It reflects the understanding of men, men restricted by their culture, their time, their place.

BTW, don't you agree that ending an argument with a challenge to 'Cowboy' is unnecessary and suggests personalizing the argument?

Danmark, the bible was not man made to fit its times. It is everlasting and timeless.

The blood offering which resembles acceptance of another's life, can be done even today if you follow the bible. You can infact paper cut or cut yourself and offer it to God if you want to. No one can stop you. Even now,I n China, they do it to one another. They get a bowl, put water in it, cut their finger a little with a small knife, mix it with the water and all the participants of the ritual, however many they might be, all rotate and drink a litttle of it to signify blood brothers. Acceptance of another's life by actions.


Enslavement is still being done today. Look at the prisons. Why do you conclude that the prisoners are not slaves to the system? Is it because the word slave was replaced by the word prisoner? Or a convict?

The system prison holds today is exactly the same of the slave system that were held back in the days.
There is no difference besides the label of wordings.


Hell is mentioned to the unbielevers, replace hell to prison. And replace life sentence of a prisoner to eternity of imprisonment to the unbielivers.

And then replace Saints to the words of prison wards, and then you'll get an idea what I mean.

If Athesists still don't get it, watch Shawshank Redemption and focus on the relationships between the Ward and the prisoners, or slaves to the Ward. It's the raw word for it.

Now think of the slaves back in the ancient times, the whole civilizations that got taken over were made slaves. Simply because the overtaken civilizations fought the opposers themselves. They were just too weak to overcome, that's all. Simply, they did exactly the same thing as to the opposers, they just didn't have enough men. Therefore, the whole civilization was considered commiting crime against the opposed, and was imprisoned or made slaves to the whole civilization of the victor.

Simply put, they just considered the overtaken civilization and its people (children,civilians, dosent matter) as one kind.

Just like we didn't only go for the kamakazees on pearl harbor, we nuked their whole kind and considered the soldiers and the civilians who did nothing as one kind.

The point here is, think of God as the president of the strongest nation, consider the prisoners(Atheists) having guilt for rebellion or blasphemy, and consider them getting life sentence for their acts or voice, and consider us the Saints prison wards.

Then consider our given planets state prisons, and consider the soul of atheists as ones being placed in those prisons, and consider us the prison wards. It's our house!

And consider hell as prison in a whole, and consider that although all atheists gets their own 'holes' sort of speak, we just put you in a hole, show up for about a minute a day and give you your chores to do for the prison for the day, and we fly off to our kingdoms, compared to let's just say Las Vegas with infinite money.

[TheTruth101]

Danmark, refer to the prior post, its been re edited.

[stubbornone]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

I wonder why I wrote this a forth time when its just going to be ignored by atheists who are intent on accusing, slyly or directly of claiming that a failure to condemn slavery means you support it? ....

Yes, Stubb, I will not slyly but directly state that when we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe, who is supposedly loving, omniscient and omnipotent, and has given mankind a code of conduct as detailed as that in Leviticus and he fails to condemn slavery, he is indeed responsible for supporting it.

But we need not look at what that God supports by omission, we can look to Genesis 9:25, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

[NIV]

That's simple danmark. What joy would the Saints have in eternity if we don't have servants.

Kings of Kings, and all Kings had slaves or servants. God is of Power. Mens Power exists within hierarchy.

Any Christians out there care to comment on "theTruth's" assertion that slavery is just fine, since it benefits God and the 'Saints?'

Why should we?

Are you commenting on Nickman's claim that the explanation of Higher and Lower Law, which is part of our doctrine, is fallacious?

Indeed, you are a lawyer, so how do you craft a perfect rule vs. guns and the need to protect society from guns?

Go ahead, make the perfect rule.

I was asking if you agreed with theTruth's apology for slavery.

Yes, I can make a rule. I think the 13th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution will suffice:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Paul in Romans seems to disagree with you about the law and sin. In a rather odd and confusing passage he says:

Romans 7:7-8:
7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, oI would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if pthe law had not said, “You shall not covet.� 8 But sin, qseizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. rFor apart from the law, sin lies dead.

Here and in other passages in the Bible there is the sense that God gave man the law, so he would know he was doing wrong.

Yet 'god' omitted slavery. theTruth seems to think slavery is justified. I asked you to comment on theTruth's position. I think I can understand why you declined.

We mere humans consider slavery evil, a horrible evil that degrades people, that dehumanizes them. Yet 'god' thought merely being jealous of another's possessions [THOU SHALL NOT COVET] was such a horrible evil he included it in the Ten Commandments. Yet this alleged 'god' said nothing about slavery.

The failure to denounce slavery is hardly some minor detail that might have been included in a list of some 7000 prohibitions. Surely it is more important than telling people not to eat beef with milk at the same meal.

Yet 'god' says nothing about slavery. Why? Because there was no god. The laws given were those of men, and they had no problem with slavery. This is not just a Biblical truth [Old Testament to Christians]; slavery is justified in the New Testament as well. In Philemon Paul refers to the slave Onesimus. Certainly Paul makes a plea to the slave's owner, but falls far short of calling slavery a sin or condemning the master for owning a slave. Paul suggests that 'perhaps' Philemon might give Onesimus his freedom, but even that comes only because the slave has become a 'brother in Christ.'

I am not quick to condemn Paul for this. His suggestion is loving, CONSIDERING HIS TIME AND PLACE. But that is my point. The Bible is a document of man's, not god's. It is limited to Earthly considerations. It is not an eternal document of a God's. It reflects the understanding of men, men restricted by their culture, their time, their place.

BTW, don't you agree that ending an argument with a challenge to 'Cowboy' is unnecessary and suggests personalizing the argument?

#1 - When someone throws slavery in my face five times ... ignoring everything I write and state, dismissing it as fallacious and then states a random thing about how Christianity is doomed ... that is pretty personal, wouldn't you agree?

When someone is burning for a fight, I think the least that can be done is a John Wayne allegory to describe his tone, tenor, and intent.

After all, so for, in describing atheist morality, we have ... Christian suck because you guys don't condemn slavery enough ... even though it will lead to slaughter ... a point we are incapable of conceeding (because this is not about truth is it?) ... and porn has no down side ... unless you prove it ... even though one source did just that (not good enough) ... and EVERYONE gets their morality from culture ... except that the whole porn debate indicts otherwise.

#2 - I didn't ask you for a law on slavery ... I asked you for on on gun control to demonstrate the point. Can I assume the over sight was an accident?

#3 - If the laws were of men, and given by men at the time, then we would have a ringing endorsement of slavery. We have instead, treat all men as you would your neighbor ...

Now, do atheists think its acceptable to enslave your neighbors and sexually abuse their wives? If so, I'd rather not have any atheists as neighbors.

#4 - The point is Dan, you are stretching the intent of the Bible to support preconceptions, and when your preconceptions have you throwing slavery in someone's face, you may want to stop and take a good hard look at your actions.

Otherwise, we'll have a nice discussion about the weaknesses in atheist morality and how, within the last century, is was exploited by not one, but two, charismatic leaders, resulting in the deaths of millions, and the enslavement of hundreds of millions more, and an extension of dominion over innocent people in nearly an entire hemisphere.

Which is of course all atheism fault, because clearly you have no doctrine that condemns it strenuously. In fact, atheism has no doctrine that condemns anything at all ... meaning, by Nickman's own standard ... atheism supports slavery.

The tossing about of slavery in this context is only about belittling other people in order to feel superior. And there is nothing honest atheism that drives such notions.

There is when people take a personal/nihilistic interest in goading over those they feel superior too ... hence the random comments about how Christianity, when challenged, will fall ... only if one is looking for excuses ... like slavery ... and a failure to apply your standard of judgement to your own position.

Atheism has no doctrine ... thus, by Nickman's own standard, it supports slavery, and the all the intellect and evolutionary morality in the world are clearly failures by this standard.

And you guys have no higher morality on either side of the slavery issue. You do not have principles upon which to base moral decisions and apply wisely in context, you need rules ... explicit rules that clearly would violate the guidance you were given ... but you need greater clarity ... to the point that, apparently, atheists would think that, if it isn't explicitly spelled out, well ... neighbors can be enslaved ...

Hence the Jesus's clarification on the higher law.

Now, why would I have to explain EVERYTHING, even the obvious things, that are bad after telling you to treat EVERYONE as you would your neighbor? Kind of obvious.

But remember Dan, If you say what you think they should ... in come the Roman Legions, and they will slaughter, rape, pillage, murder, and utterly destroy until THEY think you have been broken enough that you will not utter what you demand.

Its no oversight, its reality .. and it is one that I see two atheists, quite frankly, no so honestly avoiding.

Do you really need to continually throw slavery in someone's face, while deliberately avoiding that what you demand in context leads to mass murder? Do you really need to take that much of a pot shot at Christian morality?

[TheTruth101]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

I wonder why I wrote this a forth time when its just going to be ignored by atheists who are intent on accusing, slyly or directly of claiming that a failure to condemn slavery means you support it? ....

Yes, Stubb, I will not slyly but directly state that when we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe, who is supposedly loving, omniscient and omnipotent, and has given mankind a code of conduct as detailed as that in Leviticus and he fails to condemn slavery, he is indeed responsible for supporting it.

But we need not look at what that God supports by omission, we can look to Genesis 9:25, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

[NIV]

That's simple danmark. What joy would the Saints have in eternity if we don't have servants.

Kings of Kings, and all Kings had slaves or servants. God is of Power. Mens Power exists within hierarchy.

Any Christians out there care to comment on "theTruth's" assertion that slavery is just fine, since it benefits God and the 'Saints?'

Why should we?

Are you commenting on Nickman's claim that the explanation of Higher and Lower Law, which is part of our doctrine, is fallacious?

Indeed, you are a lawyer, so how do you craft a perfect rule vs. guns and the need to protect society from guns?

Go ahead, make the perfect rule.

I was asking if you agreed with theTruth's apology for slavery.

Yes, I can make a rule. I think the 13th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution will suffice:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Paul in Romans seems to disagree with you about the law and sin. In a rather odd and confusing passage he says:

Romans 7:7-8:
7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, oI would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if pthe law had not said, “You shall not covet.� 8 But sin, qseizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. rFor apart from the law, sin lies dead.

Here and in other passages in the Bible there is the sense that God gave man the law, so he would know he was doing wrong.

Yet 'god' omitted slavery. theTruth seems to think slavery is justified. I asked you to comment on theTruth's position. I think I can understand why you declined.

We mere humans consider slavery evil, a horrible evil that degrades people, that dehumanizes them. Yet 'god' thought merely being jealous of another's possessions [THOU SHALL NOT COVET] was such a horrible evil he included it in the Ten Commandments. Yet this alleged 'god' said nothing about slavery.

The failure to denounce slavery is hardly some minor detail that might have been included in a list of some 7000 prohibitions. Surely it is more important than telling people not to eat beef with milk at the same meal.

Yet 'god' says nothing about slavery. Why? Because there was no god. The laws given were those of men, and they had no problem with slavery. This is not just a Biblical truth [Old Testament to Christians]; slavery is justified in the New Testament as well. In Philemon Paul refers to the slave Onesimus. Certainly Paul makes a plea to the slave's owner, but falls far short of calling slavery a sin or condemning the master for owning a slave. Paul suggests that 'perhaps' Philemon might give Onesimus his freedom, but even that comes only because the slave has become a 'brother in Christ.'

I am not quick to condemn Paul for this. His suggestion is loving, CONSIDERING HIS TIME AND PLACE. But that is my point. The Bible is a document of man's, not god's. It is limited to Earthly considerations. It is not an eternal document of a God's. It reflects the understanding of men, men restricted by their culture, their time, their place.

BTW, don't you agree that ending an argument with a challenge to 'Cowboy' is unnecessary and suggests personalizing the argument?

In case point, what stubbornone writes I can agree with. Under the terms of righteouss moral deeds spoken of the bible.

The herirarchy of the bible is what I am reffering to. You are adding heirarchy and moral deeds into one as a whole.

Hierarchy and orders is what's being spoken within me. Morals righteouss deeds spoken of the bible is being shown with stubbeornones words.


Simply, a statement of heaven's is being stated with hierarchy and of righteous deeds.

To conclude, knowing that all Christians will get individual planets with own given servants, his planet by all means should consist of fair rights.

It's his planet, he will be the law in his planet.

All atheists should pray (lol) to get in his planet, because in my planet, they will be total condemnation and order.

And possibly stubbornone might send me a messege by his given Angel to calm down on the atheists on my planet, and by all means I will give you guys a break for a day, or by all means, he might condemn you for a day.

Its all upto us.

[Bust Nak]

Do you think people, who list zero good works they are doing, but making grotesque and inaccurate generalizations about people who are doing good works are headed down a righteous path? And the generalization go BOTH ways on that statement above do they not?

No. Yes.

If the only reason you are doing good works is to run your sense of moral superiority in someone's face ... are your morals as pure as you might think?

Actually, it's exactly as pure as I think, and I think it is less than pure.

I do like that several atheists, not all mind you, that rather than defend their position, or explain their irrational perception of religion, simply dump it out there without any ability to recognize the consequences of their unsupported statement.

I think I know who you have in mind when you said that, I also think you are misjudging them. Take the OP for example, it does not warrent the kinds of remark you made. From your reply here, I seems you agree that someone who does good because it gives them satisfaction, is morally superior to someone who does good out of religious compulsion, which is exactly what the OP is suggesting too.