Raf

T&O, were you done making your point, or do you have more to share? Because I have oodles, but I want to wait my turn.

X Men Hugh Jackman Les Miserables

Sticking to one subtopic at a time seems reasonable to me. And slavery seems as good a place to start as any. I would add that I am VERY interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject. What you've posted so far requires more time than I have at the moment, but I promise not to ignore it. And WW, welcome to the convo!

Ask away.

Cheated. And that would make an AWESOME name for the next sequel in the series of the second title.

No, I was just making a funny.

Joke's over

This argument is precisely why I asked Allan to expound on his statement. I hope both the abstract statement and the more concrete explanations aid Java Jane in her writing

Second time they were in the same movie. First time they were in the same scene/frame.

I should add that an examination of God's morality is not limited to the law. It can and should also include his behavior before the law was given and after. I'll give you some examples of on topic v. off topic. "Raf, you misunderstand what slavery was 3000 years ago v. what it was 300 years ago. Here's a list of differences that account for why God never banned it in the Torah." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the issue raised in the thread topic and in the opening/subsequent posts. "I think the Bible contains God's word but not that it IS God's word. As such, some of the things that made it into the law are a better reflection of the harshness of man than they are of the so-called immorality of God." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the thread topic and the opening/subsequent posts. "God banned murder. So He got some things right. You're just cherry-picking the bad things." Actually, such a comment would be just cherry picking the good things. The comment is on the line, at best. The thread topic is not "Can't God do anything right?" If it were, a list of things that underscore his morality would be on topic. God banned murder. God banned usury. God doesn't like potty mouths or cheating on your wife. Sure, bring them up, but why? Do they address the thread topic? No, because they are not really in dispute. Remember, the thread topic is "Are YOU more moral than Yahweh?" It is not "Are all people more moral than Yahweh?" Why is that distinction important? Because we're not comparing Yahweh's stand on slavery to Simon Legree's. We're comparing it to yours. We're not comparing Yahweh's stand on usury to Vinnie the Fingerbreaker's. We're comparing it to yours. So unless you approve of murder, usury, adultery, and fould language, invoking Yahweh's stand on those issues does not actually contribute to the discussion. "Other cultures at the time were worse." Off topic. The question is not "Were other cultures at the time more moral than Yahweh?" "Raf, you need to read the scripture with open eyes. It's clear you can't do that anymore because you've closed your eyes to the things of God and are now influenced by demons." :offtopic:/>/> Not to mention ad hominem and deeply offensive. You're wasting your breath. And after what happened on this thread before, I'm not going to sit by while BS like that is thrown at me again, like I did last time. It will be reported and it will be dealt with instantly. I let things get out of hand by responding to them instead of reporting them. It will not happen again. Show me what you see with your open eyes and open heart. Hope that clarifies things.

It's really not hard. In my posts, I'm laying out specific differences between morality as we understand it today and Yahweh's laws and behavior as exhibited in his law. My premise is that if morality is both objective and absolute, and God is the source of that objective, absolute morality, then his law should be absolutely and objectively moral. In all points. So instances in which his law appears to not be moral according to our standards MUST be addressed. Are our standards wrong? Are we misunderstanding the scriptures? Now be careful. You talked about the eastern mindset considering the concept of an "employee" barbaric. The burden is now on you to demonstrate not just that they felt this way, but that they were correct to do so. That is, if you're equating the eastern mindset with God's will. Otherwise, we're off topic again. I'm not asking if you are more moral than Bronze Age Israelites. I'm asking if you are more moral than the God they worshipped. Personally, I don't see how you can come up with a definition of slavery that is BOTH Biblically accurate and morally defensible. The Bible doesn't just employ the word. It establishes the meaning. And God never abolished the institution. As slavery is defined and regulated in the Bible, I submit YOU would have abolished it. God didn't. Why?

At last! You're obviously on topic. Go on!

Survey says...!

Take a guess.

Let's try a different approach. If you were God, giving your law to your chosen people, and your chosen people wanted to keep slaves, would you regulate slavery, or would you tell your chosen people: "No. Under no circumstances is one human being allowed to own another. I forbid it. End of discussion. You do it, and you will make Me very angry, and you wouldn't like Me when I'm angry"? God chose to regulate slavery. If I'm right, you would have abolished it, no questions asked. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can regulating slavery be MORE moral than abolishing it, if morality is absolute and objective? If you were God and you gave your law to your chosen people, and one of your laws was not to work on a particular day, what would your punishment be for that infraction? Would you require that the person not eat until the next sunset? Or would you stone him with stones until he dies? God chose to stone the poor sticker-picker-upper. If I'm right, you would not have done it. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can the death penalty for the most minor offense imaginable (seriously, who, other than God's ego, is hurt when a man picks up firewood on a Saturday?) be MORE moral than a token "punishment" with no long-lasting harm other than discomfort and inconvenience? [To answer a point made on an unrelated thread, these questions do not entail atheist presuppositions. They presume that the God of the Old Testament is a real being who really communicated His will, and they evaluate His law according to our current moral values. So I truly do invite discussions that tackle these difficult questions. Dodging these questions by pointing out irrelevant information is not on topic and therefore not welcome -- NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. God banned usury. Well, that's wonderful, and it's certainly a good thing. But does it address the fact that he failed to abolish slavery and that he instituted a punishment for Sabbath-breaking that even ISIS members would say is a little on the harsh side? No. It's a dodge. Dodges are off topic].

Delayed reaction much?

Yup.

Totally different tone: "Hey, this is a suicide mission. We have to do something. They are not gonna land this plane."

Barney Miller

The Last Action Hero A guess, but I'd be shocked if I was wrong

Does the star of the spinoff live? Slightly exaggerated rumors to the contrary notwithstanding?

;)

That's it! I mean Scary Movie. That's it. The genre is horror. Informally, scary movie. Scary Movie was the working title of Scream. Scream spawned three sequels. Scary Movie spawned 4.

Of course you can. I never suggested otherwise. In fact, I wrote: "Which is FINE, if you don't want to answer to question. But if you do [want to answer the question], it doesn't [answer anything]." Again, in response to this, you graciously (unmerited favor from Allan, acting out of his good will, not out of compulsion and not because it was earned by me) answered the question. My request was not nice? I think you're mixing my request up with the other guy's. You know, the one who actually challenged your assertion that God got you in. I never challenged that. So clearly you have my request for information mixed up with a question that was not as nice (to use your terminology). JavaJane made a really nice request. Your response was vague (to use Word Worlf's terminology) and abstract (to use mine). So I asked you to expound on it, and you did. What exactly is the big deal here? [No comment on the rest of your post, other than that you misspelled awesome. ]

I did not mean to imply that you had anything for which you should apologize, Waysider. You don't. And neither do I, because my questions and comments were on point and on topic. THAT was my point.