@Robert - I’ve frankly rather enjoyed your comments in this thread and over in the German one. You made me take a self crash-course in German last night and today just so I could understand what was going on and contribute!!! (In the process, I learned something about myself and my learning style.)
You’re not the usual run-of-the-mill atheist spouting intolerance either. Imo I think you’re a very wise person, because you say that you could be wrong; you stay open-minded. And you don’t automatically assume every religious person is two stamps short of postage. You respect relatives and friends who are believers, and even admire some of them.
And you’re right, I too tend to dislike the dogmas. I could never be Catholic, for example, though I’ve had the acquaintance of one priest who has earned my respect. Elsewhere I’ve said I’m a bit of a rebel in the church, though not in the sense of causing division or being a pain in the backside. I’m into the checks and balances thing, and hopefully with others being a catalyst for change. In my younger years I was subjected to religious abuse, and I determined to be a teacher against such ignorance.
You hit the nail on the head, as I myself have always hated calling myself a religious person; I’d rather call myself a person of faith. I am a believer. And being a believer in my mind has nothing to do with mindlessly swallowing everything from the pulpit without thinking about it. In fact, (sorry if I sound preachy, I’m not meaning to), one of my fave N.T. verses is when a group of people were described as “noble” when compared to another group, because they actively researched to see whether their spiritual leader’s words had any authenticity. Of course, I surmise they didn’t sit there with a critical, cynical attitude either; rather, they kept an open mind and in the process strengthened their faith. That’s what happened to me when exposed to academic life at university. I discarded some ideas, and other ideas were strengthened. I also appreciated others’ ideas a lot more.
@Julz: “…Thus ebed is sometimes translated as “servant”…”
In the New Testament, too, it is notable that many inferior modern translations seem to use the word “slave” very widely, whereas older translations (such as King James) sometimes use words like “servant” instead.
I agree that this is much more complex than some seem to realise. One has to have regard for the full historical context. For example, as I mentioned in an earlier post, “slaves” (in the Roman sense) were not by any means the exact same thing as what most people think of as slaves today.
Having said that, I still think that LFJ’s assertion that “Jesus condoned slavery no matter how cruel the master” is merely a fabrication.
The particular section we’re discussing in these previous posts are found in Exodus 21 and elsewhere throughout the Bible, OT and NT. Since Jesus is God the Word and all that, it is all attributed to the same “being”, according to the religion. Unless of course you want to make a distinction for convenience to get “Jesus” out of the hot water, but Jesus still spoke often about how disobedient slaves will be beaten in the NT and never once denounced it. Take Luke 12:47-48 for example.
Say “slave” or the softer word “servant” or whatever makes you feel better about it, but in Exodus it is explicitly the owning of another human being as property which is an immoral practice whichever angle or cultural context you try to look at it from.
Even taking speaking in parables as an excuse, it isn’t necessary or wholesome to always be so violent-minded. It disturbs the mind, or is from a disturbed mind to begin with. The Buddha, for example, always spoke in parables too, and that religion has a vastly larger number of scriptures, yet violence is thoroughly denounced throughout. You will not find such disgustingly horrible events like the ordered genocide of entire cities, plagues set upon innocent people, ordered and executed human sacrifices, etc. in a real religion of peace.
In fact, god in the Bible (the same being that is Jesus) has a kill-count of nearly 2.5 million people for the most stupid and arrogant reasons, and sometimes just because he felt like it! (Who, how, and why lists can be found online and verified in your Bible). And that is only the ones that are enumerated. There are entire towns destroyed either by his hand or at his order, and let’s not forget the entire population of Earth at one point, except for like 8 people. That’s an amazingly loving being to be worshipped!
In contrast, Satan only killed the children of Job, but only by the allowance of god. So the blood is still on god’s hands for those too! Satan actually seems to be an alright guy, by comparison.
I see that what Steve said about insulting people only applies for some category of people and not to all. Oh well it’s not surprising at all ( or maybe he didn’t saw Spatterson cursing me).
@Julz: I must mention once again that in that thread I was only saying that those who imitate everything that they see in the media without reasoning first are ‘animals’.
I was engaging in hateful talk ? You mean me making fun of Spatterson or me being against gays ?
And try to be fare considering that what Spatterson said about me is not decent at all and I don’t see you scolding him for that.
I don’t mind being criticized for my English , after all I’m not a native speaker and I really want to improve. Also I want to add that in my case it is more difficult to write on the computer since unfortunately I don’t have much experience .
And once and for all regarding the subject on gays. I consider that they are not acting as they should and I only wish that more an more of them will return to what I believe is a healthy person.
@thethirdtimeisthecharm:I said that Shia are not Muslims because there are several reasons for why this is true. First thing is that the first pillar of Islam says:‘‘There is no God but Thy God and Muhammad is His prophet’’. The Shias on the other hand say: 'There is no God but Thy God and Ali is His heir ‘’ which comes in contradiction with all Islam stands for because the most horrible sin in Islam is to attribute associates to God. I also want to add another small detail that there is no mention in the Holy Qu’ran (or in the Sunnah) of the terms ‘‘Shia ,Alawi,Wahabi ,Ahmedi,Sunni etc.’’ so this shows pretty clear that there is only one real Islam.
I agree with you that the rule that bans women from driving is silly and also women just like man have the responsibility to be truthful to each other and they must inform one another where they are going.
A woman must be accompanied only when leaving the city or country were she lives in ( for protection of course) but if there isn’t anyone that can help her , she can go on her own.
I am at dinner so ill respond later… Dont want to make any typos ya know. Oh about Steve, he is free to delete my account. I wont be editing any of my insults to u
Yeah, "I also want to add another small detail that there is no mention in the Holy Qu’ran (or in the Sunnah) of the terms ‘‘Shia ,Alawi,Wahabi ,Ahmedi,Sunni etc.’’ so this shows pretty clear that there is only one real Islam. " That’s a non-sequester. Sure. There’s no mention of baptists, catholic, lutherians in the bible either.
BTW, a whole side of my family is Shia but I guess they’re not real Muslims. I’ll say it again. You are an idiot and a bigot.
(I’m going out to drink and be merry. No more posts tonight from me! Ciao. )