Anti-Theism: Is Religion Slavery? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14463263
ComradeTim wrote:Well, I think that religion is always slavery, some people choose to blind themselves to it.


So, what exactly am I blinding myself to when I say that the defining factor is the type of relationship you envision you have with god?

These people use the mantle of religion but are really humanists following their own conscience. i merely want to make them aware of this fact.


This should be amusing. Please provide some sort of empirical evidence that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not inspired by Jesus to do his civil rights work. Thank you.
#14463268
Pants-of-dog wrote: So, what exactly am I blinding myself to when I say that the defining factor is the type of relationship you envision you have with god?


I was not talking about you. Seeing as you are a deist, you don't appear to have a "relationship" with God. In a general sense, I think that even acknowledging the right of any being to have power over you to be voluntary slavery.

Pants-of-dog wrote: This should be amusing. Please provide some sort of empirical evidence that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not inspired by Jesus to do his civil rights work. Thank you.


Jesus supported slavery. Martin Luther King Jr's ancestors were slaves and were presumably not freed by their owners. This makes his "inspiration" by Jesus somewhat problematic.
#14463271
ComradeTim wrote:I was not talking about you. Seeing as you are a deist, you don't appear to have a "relationship". In a general sense, I think that even acknowledging the right of any being to have power over you to be voluntary slavery.


1. I never said I was a deist.
2. That has nothing to do with my argument, that you seem to be avoiding: that religion is only slavery if you believe that god enslaves humans.
3. Who said anything about giving god rights?

CT wrote:Jesus supported slavery. Martin Luther King Jr's ancestors were slaves and were presumably not freed by their owners. This makes his "inspiration" by Jesus somewhat problematic.


Who cares? This inconsistency to which you refer may be ironic and somewhat related but it is irrelevant to the argument.

You claimed that people who make a better world "use the mantle of religion but are really humanists following their own conscience".

MLK is a perfect example of the type of person you describe, and who has also had a fairly recorded life. Thus, it should be easy to provide evidence for your claim.
#14463438
Jesus supported slavery.


Where did you get the absurd idea that "Jesus supported slavery"? Let us see the quote.


Martin Luther King Jr's ancestors were slaves and were presumably not freed by their owners. This makes his "inspiration" by Jesus somewhat problematic.


WHAT?

Please explain this preposterous statement.

You are really falling on your sword. I guess we Christians need a laugh every now and then. Atheists are our "light work" when they make statements like these.
#14463595
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

Among these laws which Jesus EXPLICITLY says he wants to uphold, are the ones regarding the keeping and taking of slaves.

I have mentioned this verse before which drlee waved away by contradicting the word of the god he holds so dear. Which verse should I obey, if I were to become a christian? This one or one of the one which apparently contradicts it according to the duplicitous drlee.

Time and time again it comes down to this. The bible contains evil verses from barbaric times. Christians wish to sweep them under the rug and yet still retain the sanctity of age. How can this paradox be resolved? (my answer being of course that it cannot, but your opinion would be valued, thank you).
#14463617
ComradeTim wrote:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

Among these laws which Jesus EXPLICITLY says he wants to uphold, are the ones regarding the keeping and taking of slaves.

I have mentioned this verse before which drlee waved away by contradicting the word of the god he holds so dear. Which verse should I obey, if I were to become a christian? This one or one of the one which apparently contradicts it according to the duplicitous drlee.

Time and time again it comes down to this. The bible contains evil verses from barbaric times. Christians wish to sweep them under the rug and yet still retain the sanctity of age. How can this paradox be resolved? (my answer being of course that it cannot, but your opinion would be valued, thank you).


The original constitution of the USA included how to deal with slaves.

If we were to apply your logic to the USA, we would have to assume that no modern US citizens should consider themselves real US citizens because they "ignore" these articles.
#14463621
Pants-of-dog wrote:If we were to apply your logic to the USA, we would have to assume that no modern US citizens should consider themselves real US citizens because they "ignore" these articles.


This statement is not correct. The bible in it's unedited form is still considered by Christians to be divinely inspired. The US constitution has been amended and the slavery related sections have been made redundant.
#14463627
ComradeTim wrote: (my answer being of course that it cannot, but your opinion would be valued, thank you).

Google is your friend. This is something the Bible itself addresses.

To which I must actually ask: do you think you're the first person to pose this question?

Your gotcha's are as clever as Sarah Palin's. I'm pissed I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I clearly got trolled, now the thought of you snickering behind your screen is ruining my day.
#14463659
You see Comrade Tim this ridiculous position of yours (that Jesus approved of slavery) is just why mature Christians are bored with your arguments. You simply do not have a clue. Let me correct you.

First of all let's consider the taking of slaves.




Exodus tells us: “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.


So by your reasoning all of those to take or sell a slave should be put to death. By your reasoning also, Jesus would want him/her put to death.

But you really have to drop this idiotic cherry-picking of Bible versus. That is not how faith works. You quoted Jesus and understood that he meant to stand behind every word in the third century Christian interpretation of the Bible. That would not make any sense would it? Especially in the face of the fact that he repeatedly breaks the ancient laws himself. Note the "let he who is guiltless" verse reminds you of this.

The reason you are pathetically failing to carry your argument is that it is one giant argument against a position practically nobody takes. You are arguing with the very tiny minority of religious people who eschew Sunday travel and stone to death oxen who gore people. Such an audience does not exist and certainly not here on POFO.

Internalize this and understand it. You are not making points. You are making a fool of yourself.
#14463675
My, my everyone here seems to be taking this a bit too much to heart. Laugh and be merry, chaps!

Kapanda wrote: To which I must actually ask: do you think you're the first person to pose this question?


No, but I fail to see the significance.

Kapanda wrote:I'm pissed I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I clearly got trolled, now the thought of you snickering behind your screen is ruining my day.


The fact that comments you have allowed which were not at all offensive but merely curious to have the power to ruin your day is indeed highly amusing.

Drlee wrote:But you really have to drop this idiotic cherry-picking of Bible versus. That is not how faith works. You quoted Jesus and understood that he meant to stand behind every word in the third century Christian interpretation of the Bible. That would not make any sense would it? Especially in the face of the fact that he repeatedly breaks the ancient laws himself. Note the "let he who is guiltless" verse reminds you of this.


It seems that faith has no place for reason. Why do you bother to debate with me if you knew this before. It only seems to bring mirth to me and unnecessary grief to you. Of course , this may just be some roundabout form of Christian charity. If so, thanks.

Drlee wrote: Internalize this and understand it. You are not making points. You are making a fool of yourself.


Why on earth on you CARE so much? This has actually become the main reason why I keep coming here. If my debating skills are so poor, my arguments weak and the wholetread seems to be a waste of time to you, why return?
#14463716
I like how atheists cling to Reason like some new religion. If it's isn't rational it's heresy! God forbid anything be irrational, and of course rationality is the great wellspring of all knowledge. One religion replaced for another.
#14463733
Dagoth Ur wrote:I like how atheists cling to Reason like some new religion. If it's isn't rational it's heresy! God forbid anything be irrational, and of course rationality is the great wellspring of all knowledge. One religion replaced for another.


I like how the religious pretend that their religion is backed by reason and when that inevitably fails, they throw up their hands and say "we have faith, so the matter is closed". It makes you wonder why they wish to debate in the first place if their faith is unable to be shaked.
#14463737
Point to where I ever claimed that religion was based on Reason. What you fail to understand as you've lunged head first into the worship of rationality is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

And is your aim to shake the faith of others? Why? And honestly if this was your attempt you're doing a pretty weak job.
#14463738
Dagoth Ur wrote:Point to where I ever claimed that religion was based on Reason. What you fail to understand as you've lunged head first into the worship of rationality is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

And is your aim to shake the faith of others? Why? And honestly if this was your attempt you're doing a pretty weak job.


Just right.

Tim. What makes you think that religious people believe their religions are based upon reason?
#14463740
ComradeTim wrote:The fact that comments you have allowed which were not at all offensive but merely curious to have the power to ruin your day is indeed highly amusing.

PoFo's quality is in its users, and this is the best forum I have come across thus far. Guys like DrLee, Pants-of-Dogs, Demosthenes, Zag and many others present view points that I more often disagree with than not, but they are sincere and at the least intelligent.

It shouldn't be surprising to anybody that emotions, even if faint, get attached to PoFo by its users. So it's not surprising that you can, if you want to, piss people off. This forum is great because the guys I mention above are interested in testing thoughts and ideas. You, on the other hand, only have flame and stupidity to offer. It's excusable and acceptable if it comes from a point of sincerity. It's embarrassing when it is a source of pride, as it is to you.

It is no surprise either, given your abashed train of thought, that you would wonder why people keep coming back to a thread they engaged on already. If your superficiality was humble, even your most stupid questions like "Did Jesus endorse slavery?" would honestly be addressed. Instead, thinking you are clever enough to make Christians look stupid, you wonder why people do what is natural for human beings, and become irritated after being suckered into what first seemed like genuine curiosity.

All that you deserve credit for is trolling without catching a yellow card. You've mastered that, and trolls from all over the internet would tip their hat off to you.
#14463762
ComradeTim wrote:This statement is not correct. The bible in it's unedited form is still considered by Christians to be divinely inspired. The US constitution has been amended and the slavery related sections have been made redundant.


So, you are saying that important documents that inspire whole paradigms of behaviour can be interpreted differently at different times.

You seem to think this is perfectly acceptable for the US Constitution, but not for the Bible.

You assume this because the Bible is, according to you, divinely inspired and thus must be 100% correct in all things. What if God did not intend it that way? Why is your severe form of Biblical literalism the only correct interpretation?
#14463892
ComradeTim wrote:I like how the religious pretend that their religion is backed by reason and when that inevitably fails, they throw up their hands and say "we have faith, so the matter is closed". It makes you wonder why they wish to debate in the first place if their faith is unable to be shaked.


I wouldn't say that religion is based on reason alone; while the experience of the logoi spermatikoi (gnosis) is Hermetically understood as a synthesis of pure thought (intellect, reason, etc.) and instinct (i.e., unconscious knowledge), religion as a historical phenomenon is generally a process by which those with an advanced understanding of ancient cosmology do influence, to some extent, the best way a particular myth will evolutionarily compete with other myths. In a society that is shaped by those who possess an epistemological knowledge of spiritual matters, these elect individuals are conscious of an unconscious to which the 'living myth' of the dogma is recognized by the multitudes.

Unfortunately, in 2014, the garden variety "New Atheist" (as well as New Age spiritualists who are allergic to revelation) engage in an absurd sort of 'psychologising' of mythology and history that (ironically) manifests as unfalsifiable claims about historical figures or all-embracing conspiracy theories about the role of religion in history.
#14464067
Dagoth Ur wrote:Point to where I ever claimed that religion was based on Reason. What you fail to understand as you've lunged head first into the worship of rationality is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

And is your aim to shake the faith of others? Why? And honestly if this was your attempt you're doing a pretty weak job.


This is a debate. If there is no reason to your arguments for religion, why continue to present them? I do not "worship"rationality" but I do see it as the only way to conduct a serous debate. No, my aim is to seek understanding. But I do see it as necessary that my opponents keep their minds open to other possibilities. What I have seen here is only bull heated confidence, especially on the part of drlee and kapanda. I strongly suspect that they only came here to condescend to a "stupid atheist", fully aware that they were not willing to seriously consider their beliefs afresh, which always holds the possibility of having your faiths or beliefs shaken.

Drlee wrote: Tim. What makes you think that religious people believe their religions are based upon reason?


Well, I know that it is a dogma of the catholic faith that unaided Reason can bring you to a belief in God. But that is beside the point. I shall say for what I hope is the final time. IF RELIGION CANNOT BE ARGUED FOR OR PROVEN BY REASON, WHY BOTHER DEBATING IT?

Kapanda wrote: You, on the other hand, only have flame and stupidity to offer. It's excusable and acceptable if it comes from a point of sincerity. It's embarrassing when it is a source of pride, as it is to you.


This is your opinion. It happens to be false. I cannot fathom where you got this from.

Kapanda wrote:your most stupid questions like "Did Jesus endorse slavery?"


This is a blatant misquotation. That was not a question it was a statement of fact.

Kapanda wrote:All that you deserve credit for is trolling without catching a yellow card. You've mastered that, and trolls from all over the internet would tip their hat off to you.


The fact that you wish to censor me, is highly revealing.

Pants-of-dog wrote: You assume this because the Bible is, according to you, divinely inspired and thus must be 100% correct in all things. What if God did not intend it that way? Why is your severe form of Biblical literalism the only correct interpretation?


What use is the bible if you can pick and choose what you wish to interpret? It is the word of God, he is instructing you on how to live your life and you should follow it to the letter because God is all knowing. Take parts out and you are putting yourself above God, you a finite mortal. This seems nonsensical to me.

Donald wrote: I wouldn't say that religion is based on reason alone; while the experience of the logoi spermatikoi (gnosis) is Hermetically understood as a synthesis of pure thought (intellect, reason, etc.) and instinct (i.e., unconscious knowledge), religion as a historical phenomenon is generally a process by which those with an advanced understanding of ancient cosmology do influence, to some extent, the best way a particular myth will evolutionarily compete with other myths. In a society that is shaped by those who possess an epistemological knowledge of spiritual matters, these elect individuals are conscious of an unconscious to which the 'living myth' of the dogma is recognized by the multitudes.

Unfortunately, in 2014, the garden variety "New Atheist" (as well as New Age spiritualists who are allergic to revelation) engage in an absurd sort of 'psychologising' of mythology and history that (ironically) manifests as unfalsifiable claims about historical figures or all-embracing conspiracy theories about the role of religion in history.


Could you use laymans terms please, thank you.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]