How and why can people ignore their God’s immoral ways?

[justme]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]

I was asking 1ICrying that very question not long ago, concerning the actions of God in the Old Testament.



No answer from 1I, so far...

Exactly why I wrote the O.P.

When the going gets tough and honesty is required, theists vanish.

Regards
DL

Um. I suggest you take this to a Christian site and see how well they vanish.

I have and few believers are fool enough to venture forth.

That or as seems to be the trend, they have just vanished because they cannot seem to win arguments.

There are good reasons why Christianity and Islam used the sword instead of good moral arguments to grow their religions. They did not have good moral arguments.

It is nice to be a Gnostic Christian these days as they cannot use their Inquisitions to silence us the way they did in the past.

Regards
DL[/QUOTE]

Venture forth where. I have confronted them here and other places. You also have to understand that some actual read the Bible and have learned that Christ gave a limit to their evangelizing which is found in
Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.


The reasons that religious people have caused so much blood in this world is because they were human and desired power. That is pretty much universal for all groups and civilizations, especially during the times when these religions were growing through the world. I don't imagine that Alexander thought his campaigns were any less righteous than any done by Christians or Muslim.

You are still using the term moral as if today's morality was the same as it was during the times you speak of. The very reason that religious wars were fought was because of personal interpretations of morality and the superficial understand of the morality of others.

This seems to be at the core of your argument here Your interpretations.

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""justme""]

If you believe in God you understand what God actually is and from that you come to the understanding everything God does is moral and just.

It's the same idea of a pottery maker who can do what he wants with the pottery he makes. No other person can do that because no other person made the pottery. The argument that has been drawn here is based on the perspective of the pottery, itself second guessing they potter who made them and arguing that the potter needs to conform to the standards that the potter set for the pottery. If this makes any sense.

You've got to understand the fact that Christian's believe that God made laws for man to control the interactions between men. He, himself is not bound by those laws by virtue of being the creator of everything and has the ability to do anything and everything with what he created.

I would suggest that you take this up with a Christian because asking us about this is meerly preaching to the choir.

I hear you and have had that foolish potter scenario used on me quite often.

I just ask them why the potter create a pot with a leaky hole in it if he did not want it to leak.

Then they use their free will card and I bring up Satan and his God given ability to deceive the whole world. If that does not shut them up, I have a longer post on free will that tends to shut them down and has them slamming the door on their way out.

Regards
DL

I'll will ignore your pinion of foolish as you have not stated anything in your remarks to connect that analogy to foolishness.

I just ask them why the potter create a pot with a leaky hole in it if he did not want it to leak.

Why would you assume that if he created a pot with a hole in it that he didn't expect it to leak. By leaking, I assume you mean flawed and what better way of bringing out the milk of human kindness than to have a person in need being comforted by those who can help. Don't Christians talk about God's love and Jesus saying Love thy neighbor as you do yourself.

Free will, I do believe has to do with God not being a Micromanager of man's daily life. Satan is another matter entirely. I suggest you do a little more research on this before talking about shutting people down. I have no love for many who claim to be Christian, but I know that many cease to argue with people they assume they can't get through to. Maybe they have resorted to praying for you.[/QUOTE]

Doubtful.

Sure Christians talk of God's love. Usually just before they say that if I reject that love, God has a nice warm place in hell waiting for me.

You are right that Christians many cease to argue with people they assume they can't get through to.

That would be all with half a brain and a decent moral sense.

How much research should I do before recognizing that adoring a genocidal son murdering prick of a God is immoral?

Never mind. I knew that even as a child.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

I have a longer post on free will that tends to shut them down and has them slamming the door on their way out.

Please post (in another thread if you prefer).[/quote]

Here is good.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Regards
DL

[Jobar]

GIA, my advice would be to use a different screen name if you want to join a believers' board. I could make a pretty long list of names I've seen at various skeptical boards that would be banned on sight, or simply refused admittance, at even the most liberal and tolerant Christian boards. For instance, christ-on-a-stick, EverLastingGodStopper, and YawehTheMerciless. You wouldn't expect them to let you sign on as Jesus Christ, after all; Greatest I Am would be just as objectionable to them, I'm sure.

[justme]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]

If you believe in God you understand what God actually is and from that you come to the understanding everything God does is moral and just.

It's the same idea of a pottery maker who can do what he wants with the pottery he makes. No other person can do that because no other person made the pottery. The argument that has been drawn here is based on the perspective of the pottery, itself second guessing they potter who made them and arguing that the potter needs to conform to the standards that the potter set for the pottery. If this makes any sense.

You've got to understand the fact that Christian's believe that God made laws for man to control the interactions between men. He, himself is not bound by those laws by virtue of being the creator of everything and has the ability to do anything and everything with what he created.

I would suggest that you take this up with a Christian because asking us about this is meerly preaching to the choir.

I hear you and have had that foolish potter scenario used on me quite often.

I just ask them why the potter create a pot with a leaky hole in it if he did not want it to leak.

Then they use their free will card and I bring up Satan and his God given ability to deceive the whole world. If that does not shut them up, I have a longer post on free will that tends to shut them down and has them slamming the door on their way out.

Regards
DL

I'll will ignore your pinion of foolish as you have not stated anything in your remarks to connect that analogy to foolishness.

I just ask them why the potter create a pot with a leaky hole in it if he did not want it to leak.

Why would you assume that if he created a pot with a hole in it that he didn't expect it to leak. By leaking, I assume you mean flawed and what better way of bringing out the milk of human kindness than to have a person in need being comforted by those who can help. Don't Christians talk about God's love and Jesus saying Love thy neighbor as you do yourself.

Free will, I do believe has to do with God not being a Micromanager of man's daily life. Satan is another matter entirely. I suggest you do a little more research on this before talking about shutting people down. I have no love for many who claim to be Christian, but I know that many cease to argue with people they assume they can't get through to. Maybe they have resorted to praying for you.

Doubtful.

Sure Christians talk of God's love. Usually just before they say that if I reject that love, God has a nice warm place in hell waiting for me.

What is doubtful?

How many times have you heard Christians talk about God being the father? How many times have parents of their kids have to punish those kids for disobeying them? How many times have parents had to walk away from these same kids, knowing what is out there to confront them. I do believ, but I'm not sure that in Christianity God will either destroy the world or remake it and by default there will only be Heaven and hell for the souls to go.

Where exactly do you expect them to say when they are dealing with the confines of what their faith states are the options?

You are right that Christians many cease to argue with people they assume they can't get through to.

That would be all with half a brain and a decent moral sense.

interpretations of morality. The opinions of one's opinion as in the use of half a brain is irelivant to the discussions and you sound like a Christian, using the qualifier decent to describe your interpretations of morality.

How much research should I do before recognizing that adoring a genocidal son murdering prick of a God is immoral?

Never mind. I knew that even as a child.

Regards
DL

I would suggest you begin with removing your hatred so you can more easily respond to questions ask of you. If you resort to this manner of debate, I can easily see why people refrain from speaking to you.

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""justme""]

Exactly why I wrote the O.P.

When the going gets tough and honesty is required, theists vanish.

Regards
DL

Um. I suggest you take this to a Christian site and see how well they vanish.

I have and few believers are fool enough to venture forth.

That or as seems to be the trend, they have just vanished because they cannot seem to win arguments.

There are good reasons why Christianity and Islam used the sword instead of good moral arguments to grow their religions. They did not have good moral arguments.

It is nice to be a Gnostic Christian these days as they cannot use their Inquisitions to silence us the way they did in the past.

Regards
DL

Venture forth where. I have confronted them here and other places. You also have to understand that some actual read the Bible and have learned that Christ gave a limit to their evangelizing which is found in
Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.


The reasons that religious people have caused so much blood in this world is because they were human and desired power. That is pretty much universal for all groups and civilizations, especially during the times when these religions were growing through the world. I don't imagine that Alexander thought his campaigns were any less righteous than any done by Christians or Muslim.

You are still using the term moral as if today's morality was the same as it was during the times you speak of. The very reason that religious wars were fought was because of personal interpretations of morality and the superficial understand of the morality of others.

This seems to be at the core of your argument here Your interpretations.[/QUOTE]

Where did you venture forth and I think our basic morality is the same today as it has been forever.

What part of our morality have you seen change?

Morality has always been subjective and at least 70% of us base our morality on reciprocity and the Golden Rule which pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""Jobar""]GIA, my advice would be to use a different screen name if you want to join a believers' board. I could make a pretty long list of names I've seen at various skeptical boards that would be banned on sight, or simply refused admittance, at even the most liberal and tolerant Christian boards. For instance, christ-on-a-stick, EverLastingGodStopper, and YawehTheMerciless. You wouldn't expect them to let you sign on as Jesus Christ, after all; Greatest I Am would be just as objectionable to them, I'm sure.[/quote]

True but if they are that intolerant, I would not last long anyway. I take your point though.

Regards
DL

[Koyaanisqatsi]

for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Ah, but then they always spin the circle with “God does not punish us; we punish ourselves.”

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""justme""]

I hear you and have had that foolish potter scenario used on me quite often.

I just ask them why the potter create a pot with a leaky hole in it if he did not want it to leak.

Then they use their free will card and I bring up Satan and his God given ability to deceive the whole world. If that does not shut them up, I have a longer post on free will that tends to shut them down and has them slamming the door on their way out.

Regards
DL

I'll will ignore your pinion of foolish as you have not stated anything in your remarks to connect that analogy to foolishness.



Why would you assume that if he created a pot with a hole in it that he didn't expect it to leak. By leaking, I assume you mean flawed and what better way of bringing out the milk of human kindness than to have a person in need being comforted by those who can help. Don't Christians talk about God's love and Jesus saying Love thy neighbor as you do yourself.

Free will, I do believe has to do with God not being a Micromanager of man's daily life. Satan is another matter entirely. I suggest you do a little more research on this before talking about shutting people down. I have no love for many who claim to be Christian, but I know that many cease to argue with people they assume they can't get through to. Maybe they have resorted to praying for you.

What is doubtful?

How many times have you heard Christians talk about God being the father? How many times have parents of their kids have to punish those kids for disobeying them? How many times have parents had to walk away from these same kids, knowing what is out there to confront them. I do believ, but I'm not sure that in Christianity God will either destroy the world or remake it and by default there will only be Heaven and hell for the souls to go.

Where exactly do you expect them to say when they are dealing with the confines of what their faith states are the options?

You are right that Christians many cease to argue with people they assume they can't get through to.

That would be all with half a brain and a decent moral sense.

interpretations of morality. The opinions of one's opinion as in the use of half a brain is irelivant to the discussions and you sound like a Christian, using the qualifier decent to describe your interpretations of morality.

How much research should I do before recognizing that adoring a genocidal son murdering prick of a God is immoral?

Never mind. I knew that even as a child.

Regards
DL

I would suggest you begin with removing your hatred so you can more easily respond to questions ask of you. If you resort to this manner of debate, I can easily see why people refrain from speaking to you.

When I started posting I mage a friend who was mostly on my side and was a softer and kinder person than I. He would not say shit if he had a mouthful, as my grandma used to say.

He got shit on as much I I was.

Even when I use the most gentle arguments, and even quote what soft spoken Bishop Spong has to say on my issues, they even shit on him.

I am not usually ignorant in what I write but theists sure are.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Ah, but then they always spin the circle with “God does not punish us; we punish ourselves.”[/QUOTE]

True, as if we crated hell.

Christians and other theists are the most hypocritical people in the world.

Regards
DL

[justme]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]

Um. I suggest you take this to a Christian site and see how well they vanish.

I have and few believers are fool enough to venture forth.

That or as seems to be the trend, they have just vanished because they cannot seem to win arguments.

There are good reasons why Christianity and Islam used the sword instead of good moral arguments to grow their religions. They did not have good moral arguments.

It is nice to be a Gnostic Christian these days as they cannot use their Inquisitions to silence us the way they did in the past.

Regards
DL

Venture forth where. I have confronted them here and other places. You also have to understand that some actual read the Bible and have learned that Christ gave a limit to their evangelizing which is found in
Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.


The reasons that religious people have caused so much blood in this world is because they were human and desired power. That is pretty much universal for all groups and civilizations, especially during the times when these religions were growing through the world. I don't imagine that Alexander thought his campaigns were any less righteous than any done by Christians or Muslim.

You are still using the term moral as if today's morality was the same as it was during the times you speak of. The very reason that religious wars were fought was because of personal interpretations of morality and the superficial understand of the morality of others.

This seems to be at the core of your argument here Your interpretations.

Where did you venture forth and I think our basic morality is the same today as it has been forever.

What part of our morality have you seen change?

I have seen morality change drastically especially since I was alive during the counterculture era.

If you mean from Biblical times it was moral to do many things, even for those who were not Christian. Just remember what the Romans did to Spartacus and his slave army.

Morality has always been subjective and at least 70% of us base our morality on reciprocity and the Golden Rule which pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years.

Regards
DL

I would like to see how you get your stats and where you get the information about the Golden Rule.

I have faith that much morality in America is based on self interest and expediency. The way people react in a social setting may just be a veneer they show when times are going comfortably for them. Let them become embroiled in something they are not equip to handle and all that nicy nice goes out the door.

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""justme""]

I have and few believers are fool enough to venture forth.

That or as seems to be the trend, they have just vanished because they cannot seem to win arguments.

There are good reasons why Christianity and Islam used the sword instead of good moral arguments to grow their religions. They did not have good moral arguments.

It is nice to be a Gnostic Christian these days as they cannot use their Inquisitions to silence us the way they did in the past.

Regards
DL

Venture forth where. I have confronted them here and other places. You also have to understand that some actual read the Bible and have learned that Christ gave a limit to their evangelizing which is found in
Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.


The reasons that religious people have caused so much blood in this world is because they were human and desired power. That is pretty much universal for all groups and civilizations, especially during the times when these religions were growing through the world. I don't imagine that Alexander thought his campaigns were any less righteous than any done by Christians or Muslim.

You are still using the term moral as if today's morality was the same as it was during the times you speak of. The very reason that religious wars were fought was because of personal interpretations of morality and the superficial understand of the morality of others.

This seems to be at the core of your argument here Your interpretations.

Where did you venture forth and I think our basic morality is the same today as it has been forever.

What part of our morality have you seen change?

I have seen morality change drastically especially since I was alive during the counterculture era.

If you mean from Biblical times it was moral to do many things, even for those who were not Christian. Just remember what the Romans did to Spartacus and his slave army.

Morality has always been subjective and at least 70% of us base our morality on reciprocity and the Golden Rule which pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years.

Regards
DL

I would like to see how you get your stats and where you get the information about the Golden Rule.

I have faith that much morality in America is based on self interest and expediency. The way people react in a social setting may just be a veneer they show when times are going comfortably for them. Let them become embroiled in something they are not equip to handle and all that nicy nice goes out the door.

You discuss like a Christian. All vagueness and hints but never any facts.

You have not indicated which moral standard has changed.

I can show that the really old tradition had the same moral tenets that we have today.

Read the Book of the Dead, for instance, and you will see their wording of the 10 commandments, minus the first 4 self-serving ones Yahweh put in.

As to where I got the stats on reciprocity, from my favorite sociologist and his world wide research.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... anguage=en

Regards
DL

[justme]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]

You discuss like a Christian. All vagueness and hints but never any facts.

You have not indicated which moral standard has changed.

I can show that the really old tradition had the same moral tenets that we have today.

Read the Book of the Dead, for instance, and you will see their wording of the 10 commandments, minus the first 4 self-serving ones Yahweh put in.

As to where I got the stats on reciprocity, from my favorite sociologist and his world wide research.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... anguage=en

Regards
DL[/quote]

I discus things out of the abundance of making things clear and precise. I was born and raised in the Jehovah's witnesses cult, which I have documented numerous times and I would have explained that if you had asked. I know things about Christian philosophy from that time and I do not, as you say speak in vague terms or without facts. I have answered you at every turn and If you seek further clarity, I would suggest you be more precise in your accusations.

You didn't ask for specifics and there is no reason for me to give them. If you think what was considered morale in the 50's didn't change once the counter culture hit you are out of sorts.

If you don't think that the morals of the Greece-roman period are the same as
they are today you aren't a student of history.

If you are so inclined to point out books, let me suggest " The history of private life"

https://www.amazon.com/History-Private- ... 0674399749

It is a intense book in five volumes that describe in full life and morality starting in the roman era and continuing down to the counterculture. I suggest you read the first book in the volume because it speaks in great detail about lives in the early Christian era.

As fgr the Book of the dead, I googled several terms about golden rules in the manuscript and got nowhere.

If you can produce what you say you can, please do so.

I will listen to this person you speak of. thank you.

By the way, do mean Morales or ethics.

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""justme""]

You discuss like a Christian. All vagueness and hints but never any facts.

You have not indicated which moral standard has changed.

I can show that the really old tradition had the same moral tenets that we have today.

Read the Book of the Dead, for instance, and you will see their wording of the 10 commandments, minus the first 4 self-serving ones Yahweh put in.

As to where I got the stats on reciprocity, from my favorite sociologist and his world wide research.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... anguage=en

Regards
DL

I discus things out of the abundance of making things clear and precise. I was born and raised in the Jehovah's witnesses cult, which I have documented numerous times and I would have explained that if you had asked. I know things about Christian philosophy from that time and I do not, as you say speak in vague terms or without facts. I have answered you at every turn and If you seek further clarity, I would suggest you be more precise in your accusations.

You didn't ask for specifics and there is no reason for me to give them. If you think what was considered morale in the 50's didn't change once the counter culture hit you are out of sorts.

If you don't think that the morals of the Greece-roman period are the same as
they are today you aren't a student of history.

If you are so inclined to point out books, let me suggest " The history of private life"

https://www.amazon.com/History-Private- ... 0674399749

It is a intense book in five volumes that describe in full life and morality starting in the roman era and continuing down to the counterculture. I suggest you read the first book in the volume because it speaks in great detail about lives in the early Christian era.

As fgr the Book of the dead, I googled several terms about golden rules in the manuscript and got nowhere.

If you can produce what you say you can, please do so.

I will listen to this person you speak of. thank you.

By the way, do mean Morales or ethics.[/QUOTE]

You say you are precise, yet have offered no particular moral standard that we no longer have.

On reciprocity in Egypt.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ams2OP ... ty&f=false

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""justme""]

You discuss like a Christian. All vagueness and hints but never any facts.

You have not indicated which moral standard has changed.

I can show that the really old tradition had the same moral tenets that we have today.

Read the Book of the Dead, for instance, and you will see their wording of the 10 commandments, minus the first 4 self-serving ones Yahweh put in.

As to where I got the stats on reciprocity, from my favorite sociologist and his world wide research.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... anguage=en

Regards
DL

I discus things out of the abundance of making things clear and precise. I was born and raised in the Jehovah's witnesses cult, which I have documented numerous times and I would have explained that if you had asked. I know things about Christian philosophy from that time and I do not, as you say speak in vague terms or without facts. I have answered you at every turn and If you seek further clarity, I would suggest you be more precise in your accusations.

You didn't ask for specifics and there is no reason for me to give them. If you think what was considered morale in the 50's didn't change once the counter culture hit you are out of sorts.

If you don't think that the morals of the Greece-roman period are the same as
they are today you aren't a student of history.

If you are so inclined to point out books, let me suggest " The history of private life"

https://www.amazon.com/History-Private- ... 0674399749

It is a intense book in five volumes that describe in full life and morality starting in the roman era and continuing down to the counterculture. I suggest you read the first book in the volume because it speaks in great detail about lives in the early Christian era.

As fgr the Book of the dead, I googled several terms about golden rules in the manuscript and got nowhere.

If you can produce what you say you can, please do so.

I will listen to this person you speak of. thank you.

By the way, do mean Morales or ethics.[/QUOTE]

You say you are precise, yet have offered no particular moral standard that we no longer have.

On reciprocity in Egypt.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ams2OP ... ty&f=false

Regards
DL

[justme]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]

You discuss like a Christian. All vagueness and hints but never any facts.

You have not indicated which moral standard has changed.

I can show that the really old tradition had the same moral tenets that we have today.

Read the Book of the Dead, for instance, and you will see their wording of the 10 commandments, minus the first 4 self-serving ones Yahweh put in.

As to where I got the stats on reciprocity, from my favorite sociologist and his world wide research.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... anguage=en

Regards
DL

I discus things out of the abundance of making things clear and precise. I was born and raised in the Jehovah's witnesses cult, which I have documented numerous times and I would have explained that if you had asked. I know things about Christian philosophy from that time and I do not, as you say speak in vague terms or without facts. I have answered you at every turn and If you seek further clarity, I would suggest you be more precise in your accusations.

You didn't ask for specifics and there is no reason for me to give them. If you think what was considered morale in the 50's didn't change once the counter culture hit you are out of sorts.

If you don't think that the morals of the Greece-roman period are the same as
they are today you aren't a student of history.

If you are so inclined to point out books, let me suggest " The history of private life"

https://www.amazon.com/History-Private- ... 0674399749

It is a intense book in five volumes that describe in full life and morality starting in the roman era and continuing down to the counterculture. I suggest you read the first book in the volume because it speaks in great detail about lives in the early Christian era.

As fgr the Book of the dead, I googled several terms about golden rules in the manuscript and got nowhere.

If you can produce what you say you can, please do so.

I will listen to this person you speak of. thank you.

By the way, do mean Morales or ethics.

You say you are precise, yet have offered no particular moral standard that we no longer have.

On reciprocity in Egypt.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ams2OP ... ty&f=false

Regards
DL[/QUOTE]

I offered an example of what was moral back in ancient times that is no mlonger maral today in the idea of what the Romans did to the slave army. That which it was acceptable to crucify large numbers of soldiers and leave their bodie to rot. If this is not an example of the dignity of life being different in anchient times as it is today.

They stopped public hangings when they did because of this very thing. The publics ideals of what was moral and what was not changed.

What is more moral than how we deal with those who break our laws. That centers on our ideals about the dignity of human life.

Back during the counterculture the morals that were changed was mostly sexual in nature and the way the human body was thought about. There were also the idea of living together out of wedlock.

This link you have rendered has nothing to do with the discussion of the Golden Rule, which is one you first cited and I asked about.

[Greatest I am]

justme

That link shows that the Egyptians had a reciprocity rule which is the Golden Rule.

Read it again for the first time.

As to the Romans. They went for murder because they did not have the resources to jail people en mass. They went for expediency and the only resolution to a problem that insured the good of the many instead of the few which is the same moral principle of today.

We do not have official slavery today because we can afford welfare. Slaves were the bottom tier of their demography just as welfare is today in ours.

That is why I see no real changer in our human morality.

Regards
DL

[justme]

[quote=""Greatest I am""]justme

That link shows that the Egyptians had a reciprocity rule which is the Golden Rule.

Read it again for the first time.

As to the Romans. They went for murder because they did not have the resources to jail people en mass. They went for expediency and the only resolution to a problem that insured the good of the many instead of the few which is the same moral principle of today.[/quote]



They did not mass murder anyone. They disposed of undesirables the same way any other grovernment did during those times and they let the bodies rot inplace to show everybody else what happens to people who mess with their empire.

You really need to read history if you want to venture into the realm of slavery, especial in Roman times. There were slaves in the government bureaucracy thay had more power than most citizens of the state. Being a slave didn't mean you were held in physical bondage or destined to work at the lower edge of society. It meant you did the work that your owner wanted you to do, so that he wouldn't have to pay a freeman wages to do the same duties. The most powerful owner of slaves in the Empire was Caesar, himself.

We do not have official slavery today because we can afford welfare.Slaves were the bottom tier of their demography just as welfare is today in ours.

That is why I see no real changer in our human morality.

Regards
DL

This has got to be the most insulting and ridiculous statement I've heard out of anyone in this forum.

We don't have slaves because we have welfare. You really have outdone yourself on the road to throwing anything and everything at the wall, hoping it will stick.

This doesn't even merit a response, but I'm fairly sure you will get more than than you can handle from others here.

As for your link I will read it again, as I did before only to appease my sence of fairplay, but It will be for my benefit and not yours. After seeing that crack about welfare I see no reason to dignify you with a response after this one. Welcome to my ignore button.

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""justme""]

justme

That link shows that the Egyptians had a reciprocity rule which is the Golden Rule.

Read it again for the first time.

As to the Romans. They went for murder because they did not have the resources to jail people en mass. They went for expediency and the only resolution to a problem that insured the good of the many instead of the few which is the same moral principle of today.

They did not mass murder anyone. They disposed of undesirables the same way any other grovernment did during those times and they let the bodies rot inplace to show everybody else what happens to people who mess with their empire.

You really need to read history if you want to venture into the realm of slavery, especial in Roman times. There were slaves in the government bureaucracy thay had more power than most citizens of the state. Being a slave didn't mean you were held in physical bondage or destined to work at the lower edge of society. It meant you did the work that your owner wanted you to do, so that he wouldn't have to pay a freeman wages to do the same duties. The most powerful owner of slaves in the Empire was Caesar, himself.

We do not have official slavery today because we can afford welfare.Slaves were the bottom tier of their demography just as welfare is today in ours.

That is why I see no real changer in our human morality.

Regards
DL

This has got to be the most insulting and ridiculous statement I've heard out of anyone in this forum.

We don't have slaves because we have welfare. You really have outdone yourself on the road to throwing anything and everything at the wall, hoping it will stick.

This doesn't even merit a response, but I'm fairly sure you will get more than than you can handle from others here.

As for your link I will read it again, as I did before only to appease my sence of fairplay, but It will be for my benefit and not yours. After seeing that crack about welfare I see no reason to dignify you with a response after this one. Welcome to my ignore button.[/QUOTE]

Tell us, who is at the bottom of our socio economic demographic pyramid.

Tell us as well who was at the bottom in Roman times.

Now do you see why the analogy is perfect?

Regards
DL