If you’re moral, create a version of your religious texts that disaproves of slavery

WAKE UP PEOPLE, CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM AND JUDAISM APPROVE OF SLAVERY! WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO LEAVE THOSE RIDICULOUS BELIEF SYSTEMS!?

A belief system from an all-powerful, all-caring "god" would have two words regarding slavery....not how to treat them, etc., but instead the words "no slavery". Simple. A 10 year old with Downs Syndrome would understand that, but God/Jesus didn't, so they are either immoral or weren't really divinely inspired....in either case they are obviously not worshiping. Jesus went fishing, made a chair, etc., but never specifically spoke out against slavery even though he saw it all around him and claimed to be a moral teacher! He's like Santa, guys, come on.

You don't need a dead magic man in the sky to be moral.

 

Ok, guys, you approve of slavery, obviously. So tell us, what WOULD the Bible have to approve of before you would leave Christianity? What WOULD be so vile in the Bible (HYPOTHETICALLY, OF COURSE) that you'd leave it?
I know that if, say, Richard Dawkins had sex with a child like Mohammad, that I personally would despise him, and look upon his teachings with great suspect. I wouldn't publicly support him, etc. What would it take for you to leave your religion, that your prophet would hypothetically say? If you say "there's noting that my prophet would have hypothetically have said or done to get me to leave", then you are brainwashed, and you'd never listen to the arguments against your belief system on this forum anyway!

 

Ok, guys, you approve of slavery, obviously. So tell us, what WOULD the Bible have to approve of before you would leave Christianity? What WOULD be so vile in the Bible (HYPOTHETICALLY, OF COURSE) that you'd leave it?
I know that if, say, Richard Dawkins had sex with a child like Mohammad, that I personally would despise him, and look upon his teachings with great suspect. I wouldn't publicly support him, etc. What would it take for you to leave your religion, that your prophet would hypothetically say? If you say "there's noting that my prophet would have hypothetically have said or done to get me to leave", then you are brainwashed, and you'd never listen to the arguments against your belief system on this forum anyway!

 

The "innocent gays" in Germany like to be normal families. For to be a normal family they need children. So some people - I call them "goodmen" - try to start to change our rights in case of adoptions. Our right of adoption knows only one person who is important for all decisions in case of adoptions - the child itselve. But suddenly we should give children to homosexual men as if we would live in socialism and we had to fullfill quotes in the production and marketing of babies. That's slavery - maybe even more worse than slavery - isn't it? You would be astonished how often I'm using the expression "slaveholder mentality" here - and very often it has to do with influences from the english speaking world.

http://youtu.be/7OqwKfgLaeA

 

You should start to learn something about the backgrounds of history, slave of the brainwashers who likes to become king of the brainwashers. Egypt was the first state on this planet - and perhaps today the people would be something like Borg only - if not a member of a little population of people - we are calling them Jews - spoke with an entity in a burning bush ... okay it's not easy to understand ... let me say it this way: Your fear is our mental health - perhaps your are right and we are crazy - but we have a lot of fun with rainbows, archs, burning bushes and so on, we love our women and our women love us - we are fighting for the beautiful things on this planet and for the quality of everyones life and so on and so on - short: We are the good guys - not the bad guys. We have only one problem: we all love Annie, sigh.

http://youtu.be/uGi490LmaP8

 

Then Dawkins would break your legs and arms, would tear out your eyes and would throw you into the sun without giving anyone the allowness to help you. How ugly. And now don't try to tell me secular humanists - like Heinrich Himmler for example - would not do so and would bring the world in a better harmony. Indeed no one knows in the moment really wether Mohammed was a person of history or not. No one is ready to search for the real history behind and around Mohammed because no one likes to get problems with Muslims. Indeed scientists are often cowards - what's completly okay. But it's not okay to think others are responsible for the own cowardness.

http://youtu.be/Z5Xjz6ZuVk0

 

We do, however, know that Himmler was not a secular humanist.
What a bizarre statement.

 

His father was the director of a humanistic academic highschool - how do you think tried his father to educate Heinrich Himmler?

http://youtu.be/p2AlWEUWl8E

 

Another thing religious texts tend to condone is murder on a mass scale. So while they may say murder of one single person is wrong genocide is ok. When Yahweh/God/Allah orders his people to kill the entire neighboring tribe, take prisoners of war and rape their virgins this is apparently acceptable. Perhaps they need to write out those parts as well, or maybe they should just walk away from the stagnant moral codes that are in religious texts entirely.

 

I do not even have a little idea how to ask you where the examples are coming from, what could be the reasons for your completly crazy views on history. It is for example not acceptable for german soldiers - also not in the times of the Nazis - to rape women of enemies. Same with Americans. I'm always very astonished if I see the completly crazy views of the english speaking world on sexuality in combination with the Nazis. Such ideas are without background. The atheistic Nazis were asexual - and the Germans who were not Nazis thought they are the good guys defending Europe against the barbars from the East. It were the Russians - the soldiers of the atheistic red army - who raped women in gigantic numbers. No one else except the japanese soldiers did so. And the japanese culture has also nothing to do with a christian influence.

http://youtu.be/zeQkaJzA1Jk

 

His father is irrelevant. Himmler's actions clearly separated him from any humanist inclinations.

 

Not really - specially in this case - because it shows very clear the limits of organized education.

He had 3.5 million men under weapons - every policeman, everyone of the SS's, secret forces and so on. All this people fought for the "Aryans" (=empty phrase) against every form of human weakness - specially also Humanity and Christianity. He murdered Slaws because he called them a weak minor race and he murdered Jews because he called them a strong higher race. On the other side: "Humanity" is a little sister of "Christianity" but the central argument of humanism is "man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras) - with other words "We are the measure of all things". "Aryan" is maybe exactly this idea combined with [social] Darwinism: "We are the measure of all things - we can do whatever we like to do - we have only to win."

http://youtu.be/rnkhtjpZAqQ

 

Where are your crazy ideas coming from? - what are your sources? - who planted what in your brain and what are the reasons behind this brainypulation? Take Alexander, Cesar, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler as examples. They did not take care on spirituality. Not so Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Ghandi. Buddha and Jesus are clear persons. Mohammed is behind a wall of manipulating words nearly invisible - and Gandhi fought in another way. Moses is perhaps somewhere in the middle - a holy man who made also very heavy mistakes - but he lived in a very confusing time.

http://youtu.be/k1Etruh7Ch8

 

And yet, actions, being different from Christianity, do not separate him from Christianity? Nice.

 

In what post did I claim Himmler to be a Christian?

 

You didn't, you just applied a blatant double standard. We get the rhetoric all the time about Hitler being a Christian, etc. Yet their actions so at odds with with Christian doctrine (which at least we have), does not separate them from Christianity. However, and avowed humanist doing the same thing ... well, his actions clearly do not jive with humanism so he is not a humanist.

Its just the application of more deliberate hypocrisy. The intent, as always, is not a search for truth, but an attempt to belittle others with hypocritical standard.

Par for the atheist course.

 

If I never said it, how is it hypocrisy? If two people say opposing things, does it make them both hypocrites?
You don't think very well, do you?

You continue to attribute atheism to me, which you know I have explained doesn't apply to me. Why are you so devoted to false witness while pretending to care one iota about the Christian God? Why not just come out as a satanist, since you spit on the basic principles of Christianity?

 

Yep, when someone applies two different standards to analogous situations, the one reflecting HIS position is excused, the one reflecting the position he hates and full of anger about is not ... yep ... well, in all honesty your rebuttal doesn't even make any sense.

Its called the fallacy of special pleading, and pretty much defines hypocrisy.

Humanist behaves badly - not a humanist.

Christian behave badly - the embodiment of all things Christian.

Agh, but you got called on it, and no self worshipper likes to be exposed as utterly hypocritical - so you just deny it. Par for the atheist course.

 

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=sh_defined

Hmmm ... turns out that secular humanism apparently supports slavery. Five pages of explaining what it is, mostly why is not a religion even though it meets many of the characteristics of religion, and not a single mention of slavery?

Obviously, therefore, as per the OP's standard, secular humanism clearly supports slavery.

Now I wonder whether or not secular humanism is currently advocating mass insurrection of the sexually enslaved women out there? No? Well, must be because all secular humanists want to own their own personal sex slave? Obviously, right?

What!?! I thought this standard was just fone when applied to Christians and Muslims? Why not atheists as well?

 

Odd, though.
You admitted that you could find no post of mine that called Himmler a Christian.
I got called on nothing, except an ill conceived attack that doesn't apply to me.
Do you really think people don't see you for what you are?

 

I never made that stupid ass claim. Go back and read the English.

You atheists often present hitler as a Christian, I have NEVER seen you give him, or any other misbehaving Christian a pass, becauses on his behavior. But Himmler is not a humanist ... because he is behaving badly?

Agh, you have say that Himmler is a Christian ... which isn't even relevant to the point being made? Logic is not your strong suit is it? But then, there is often not a whole lot of logic in deliberate hypocrisy. Its why, in this case, its fallacious.

 

So much for your English lesson.
I am not responsible for the arguments that others have made, no matter how badly you want to attribute them to me.
Your arguments are fraudulent, and your attribution of my atheism is tiresome and innacurate, as well as deliberate and dishonest.
You are a terrible witness to your faith, or a great witness to a faith to be avoided.

 

Some folks don't consider all slavery as bad.

In America most folks figure being a live slave is better than being a dead free man, which is why we submit to stupid taxes, licenses, regulations etc..
We know what the system does to those who don't "cooperate".

 

You have indeed made that arguement in the past, indeed you commonly support your fellow cult members as they make the claims:

You see? That is your reply to BF rebutting the common propoganda that Hilter was Christian - now that is truth, eh? Only now, when confornted with your hypocrisy - you have never made such a statement?

Look at that, there you are publically linking ALL Christians and Muslims to the mujahadeen, who mostly fought in Afghanistan. Odd, I am probably the only frequent member of the forum whose been to Afghanistan, I was fighting the remnants of the mujahadeen. Odd.

So, with one hand you will link us all to every vile act any religious person does, but Himmler, who publically states that he was a humanist, is not because his behavior conflicts with the humanist manifesto?

In short, you applied, as you usually do, double standards.

We get this a lot from avowed atheists, whose sole goal seems to flame bait others in some sick quest for self esteem.

Feel free to offer up some lame excuse now. But the reality is, you wouldn't find yourself in these positions is you just stuck to a set of objective standards - instead of changing them on a dime because the person you are talking with is Christian, and thus requires an entirely different set of standards.

Like spiritual attacks ....

Just remember BB, discernment is one of the gifts of the spirit - and who exactly do you think you are fooling?

 

The Founders also approved of slavery, that was the norm of the time.

You fail to understand cultural context.