Godly Love

[Dan56]

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The regulations for what you call, "Indentured Servitude" come from Exodus 21:

 

No, as I previously wrote; "Except for cases of prisoners of war, the term slave was generally used to describe indentured servitude, which was essentially equivalent to paid labor." The passage in Exodus is describing purchased slaves, not Hebrew bondmen who were placed nearly on a par with hired servants. Foreign slaves, whether prisoners taken in war (Canaanites), or persons bought in the market, were protected to a very great extent, but the regulation in verse 20 was not citing indentured servitude.  

 

"They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee." Leviticus 25:40

" “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

56 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

No, as I previously wrote; "Except for cases of prisoners of war, the term slave was generally used to describe indentured servitude, which was essentially equivalent to paid labor." The passage in Exodus is describing purchased slaves, not Hebrew bondmen who were placed nearly on a par with hired servants. Foreign slaves, whether prisoners taken in war (Canaanites), or persons bought in the market, were protected to a very great extent, but the regulation in verse 20 was not citing indentured servitude.  

 

"They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee." Leviticus 25:40

" “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)

 

 

 

Exodus 20:17

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

I'm sure you recognize this passage.  It's from the Ten Commandments.  This Commandment is the order, not to covet the things that are my neighbour's.  In particular, the various properties that belong to my neighbour.

 

his house ------------ property

his wife --------------- property

his manservant --- property

his maidservant -- property

his ox ------------------ property

his ass ----------------  property

nor anything that is thy neighbour's

 

Your "indentured servant" is property -- along with the owner's house, wife, ox and ass.  Unless, of course, the ox and ass are also pulling down wages.    Just like the "indentured servant".

 

We might also wonder at the wife, being listed as one of the properties.  So much for "objective morality".

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

On 12/21/2018 at 1:52 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Because of the socioeconomic situation of old testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. That is a far cry from the slavery endorsed by the south in the civil war, where people were captured and removed from their own country and forced to work at the end of a whip. Slavery in colonial America in the 18th century was fraught with racism and abuse, but in old testament Israel, entrance into slavery simply became a necessity for some. No one forced anyone else into slavery. The slave signed a contract agreeing to serve the master’s family for a period of 7 years. At the end of this time, the law required the cancellation of the contract. During the indenture period, the slave was entitled to all the rights of any other family member, except the right of inheritance. A good example is Jacob, in order to earn Rachel’s hand in marriage, he met with her father Laban and arranged to become a slave in the household for seven years.

 

 

The main point was that the Nativity scene was in celebrating a specific date, while the Satanic statue was in protest.

I didn't know that Atheist held the "laws of the land" as their morals?

 

 

The law simply allows religious beliefs to be celebrated, whether its a Christmas tree or a Menorah for Hanukkah. The Satanic symbol was allowed the same access, but my point was that it was in celebration of nothing, but only a means of attempting to ridicule and interfere with what others hold sacred. By your own words, it was only a means to protest religious symbolism on public property. 

They fought for the same access...big difference.  You assume the motive to fit your bigotted narrative.

Edited December 22, 2018 by cuchulain

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 12/21/2018 at 1:52 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Because of the socioeconomic situation of old testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. That is a far cry from the slavery endorsed by the south in the civil war, where people were captured and removed from their own country and forced to work at the end of a whip. Slavery in colonial America in the 18th century was fraught with racism and abuse, but in old testament Israel, entrance into slavery simply became a necessity for some. No one forced anyone else into slavery. The slave signed a contract agreeing to serve the master’s family for a period of 7 years. At the end of this time, the law required the cancellation of the contract. During the indenture period, the slave was entitled to all the rights of any other family member, except the right of inheritance. A good example is Jacob, in order to earn Rachel’s hand in marriage, he met with her father Laban and arranged to become a slave in the household for seven years.

 

 

The main point was that the Nativity scene was in celebrating a specific date, while the Satanic statue was in protest.

I didn't know that Atheist held the "laws of the land" as their morals?

 

 

The law simply allows religious beliefs to be celebrated, whether its a Christmas tree or a Menorah for Hanukkah. The Satanic symbol was allowed the same access, but my point was that it was in celebration of nothing, but only a means of attempting to ridicule and interfere with what others hold sacred. By your own words, it was only a means to protest religious symbolism on public property. 

 

 

Well?  Why must religious bullies, force their stuff onto Public Space?  Bullies are seldom loved.  Of course, there was push back.  Cultural dominance has consequences.

 

 

One of those consequences is a loss of credibility.

 

Matthew 6:5

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

 

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

They fought for the same access...big difference.  You assume the motive to fit your bigotted narrative.

 

And you assume "access" was their only motive because it fits your bigoted narrative.

 

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Well?  Why must religious bullies, force their stuff onto Public Space?

 

Exactly... Forcing a Satanic statue into a public place was an act of religious bullying.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

And you assume "access" was their only motive because it fits your bigoted narrative.

 

 

Exactly... Forcing a Satanic statue into a public place was an act of religious bullying.

 

Since my meaning was lost on you, I will rephrase.  "Well?  Why must Christian Fundamentalist bullies, force their stuff onto Public Space?"  

[cuchulain]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

And you assume "access" was their only motive because it fits your bigoted narrative.

 

 

Exactly... Forcing a Satanic statue into a public place was an act of religious bullying.

False.  Bigoted:  obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

 

Your opinion is that we should all accept your religion in public space, and that when we protest such bad behavior on your religions part WE are the one's engaging in incorrect action.  YOUR religion is the group of people foisting their beliefs in an inappropriate manner.  Yours is the one who destroys OUR representation in public space.  You are merely lying if you tell me no Christians have filed suit to have their monuments in public but NOT OURS.

 

My narrative has been and remains, the law should be upheld.  There should be equal representation for all, or no representation for anyone, in a public space.  You cannot tell me how that is bigoted...because it isn't.

 

Forcing a satanic statue into a public place was not religious bullying.  Forcing your religion in public IS.

[Dan56]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

"Well?  Why must Christian Fundamentalist bullies, force their stuff onto Public Space?"  

 

Its not forced, 71% of Americans are Christian and enjoy it.. Less than 1% of Americans identify as Satanist, so 99% of us have no interest or desire to partake in anything they have to offer.. Making 99% of us endure what 1% insist on, is bullying.. But when the majority prefers to engage in what is being represented & celebrated, its called a consensus, not bullying. Those outside of the 71% need to learn to go along with the crowd,  or just ignore what doesn't appeal to them and stay on the sidelines.

 

28 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

False.  Bigoted:  obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

 

Your opinion is that we should all accept your religion in public space, and that when we protest such bad behavior on your religions part WE are the one's engaging in incorrect action.  YOUR religion is the group of people foisting their beliefs in an inappropriate manner.  Yours is the one who destroys OUR representation in public space.  You are merely lying if you tell me no Christians have filed suit to have their monuments in public but NOT OURS.

 

My narrative has been and remains, the law should be upheld.  There should be equal representation for all, or no representation for anyone, in a public space.  You cannot tell me how that is bigoted...because it isn't.

 

Forcing a satanic statue into a public place was not religious bullying.  Forcing your religion in public IS.

 

My opinion is that the minority should tolerate what the majority believes, but no one is forcing them to accept it. What you guys are spewing is tantamount to saying that since less than 1% of people don't like sunshine,  no one should be allowed to go outside on sunny days.

 

Your definition of bigoted also makes my case, when the minority insist on force-feeding what they believe, and put statues or signs up to disrupt what most people believe, that demonstrates intolerance.. The pendulum swings both ways, its just a matter of which side your on that determines which side you think are bigoted. Imo, neither side is bigoted, they just want what they want.

[cuchulain]

47 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its not forced, 71% of Americans are Christian and enjoy it.. Less than 1% of Americans identify as Satanist, so 99% of us have no interest or desire to partake in anything they have to offer.. Making 99% of us endure what 1% insist on, is bullying.. But when the majority prefers to engage in what is being represented & celebrated, its called a consensus, not bullying. Those outside of the 71% need to learn to go along with the crowd,  or just ignore what doesn't appeal to them and stay on the sidelines.

 

 

My opinion is that the minority should tolerate what the majority believes, but no one is forcing them to accept it. What you guys are spewing is tantamount to saying that since less than 1% of people don't like sunshine,  no one should be allowed to go outside on sunny days.

 

Your definition of bigoted also makes my case, when the minority insist on force-feeding what they believe, and put statues or signs up to disrupt what most people believe, that demonstrates intolerance.. The pendulum swings both ways, its just a matter of which side your on that determines which side you think are bigoted. Imo, neither side is bigoted, they just want what they want.

Wrong.  Sunshine is natural, christianity isnt.  An overwhelming majority of Americans support the constitution which calls for separation of church and state and the gov not endorsing one religion over another.  the law also allows abortion, so by your logic you should tolerate that as well as gay marriage.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its not forced, 71% of Americans are Christian and enjoy it.. Less than 1% of Americans identify as Satanist, so 99% of us have no interest or desire to partake in anything they have to offer.. Making 99% of us endure what 1% insist on, is bullying.. But when the majority prefers to engage in what is being represented & celebrated, its called a consensus, not bullying. Those outside of the 71% need to learn to go along with the crowd,  or just ignore what doesn't appeal to them and stay on the sidelines.

 

 

My opinion is that the minority should tolerate what the majority believes, but no one is forcing them to accept it. What you guys are spewing is tantamount to saying that since less than 1% of people don't like sunshine,  no one should be allowed to go outside on sunny days.

 

Your definition of bigoted also makes my case, when the minority insist on force-feeding what they believe, and put statues or signs up to disrupt what most people believe, that demonstrates intolerance.. The pendulum swings both ways, its just a matter of which side your on that determines which side you think are bigoted. Imo, neither side is bigoted, they just want what they want.

 

 

 

 

Finally.  An honest response from you.  Fundamentalist Christians force their crap into public spaces -- because they can.  That is the extent of your explanation.  You have the numbers.  You have the power.  The rest of us can suck it.

 

Things change.  When your group is no longer on top, you may have a fresh perspective on minority rights.

 

     

Edited December 23, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

False.  Bigoted:  obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

 

Your opinion is that we should all accept your religion in public space, and that when we protest such bad behavior on your religions part WE are the one's engaging in incorrect action.  YOUR religion is the group of people foisting their beliefs in an inappropriate manner.  Yours is the one who destroys OUR representation in public space.  You are merely lying if you tell me no Christians have filed suit to have their monuments in public but NOT OURS.

 

My narrative has been and remains, the law should be upheld.  There should be equal representation for all, or no representation for anyone, in a public space.  You cannot tell me how that is bigoted...because it isn't.

 

Forcing a satanic statue into a public place was not religious bullying.  Forcing your religion in public IS.

 

 

     

[cuchulain]

It begs the question, if you are such a majority as that...exactly how do you get it so backwards as to say you are persecuted by us?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

It begs the question, if you are such a majority as that...exactly how do you get it so backwards as to say you are persecuted by us?

 

 

This much is clear.  Since Fundamentalists speak for God -- and act for God -- any limits on their speech or actions are an attack on God.  It follows that we must me motivated by opposition to God.  That is what Dan keeps telling us.  This is why.

 

Of course, that makes for some silly questions.

 

1,  How we can hate the God, that we don't believe in.

 

2.  What kind of weak, pathetic God, needs someone like Dan to defend it, from us.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Wrong.  Sunshine is natural, christianity isnt.  An overwhelming majority of Americans support the constitution which calls for separation of church and state and the gov not endorsing one religion over another.  the law also allows abortion, so by your logic you should tolerate that as well as gay marriage.

 

The separation of church & state does not actually appear anywhere in the constitution; " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  So imo, it assures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And I do tolerate government laws even though I don't agree with all of them. 

 

8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Finally.  An honest response from you.  Fundamentalist Christians force their crap into public spaces -- because they can.  That is the extent of your explanation.  You have the numbers.  You have the power.  The rest of us can suck it.

 

All my responses are honest.. And yes, when you live in a society dominated by a similar belief,  you generally need to make some adjustments and tolerate it, e.g; When in Rome.

 

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

It begs the question, if you are such a majority as that...exactly how do you get it so backwards as to say you are persecuted by us?

 

You don't have to be in the majority to discriminate.... And I never said I was persecuted by you? All I'm saying is that you can't demand that the Christmas tree be removed from the white house because your not a Christian. Public places are for the public, and if the country is predominately Christian, minorities need to put up with some Christmas lights, as painful as that may be for you.

 

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

What kind of weak, pathetic God, needs someone like Dan to defend it, from us.

 

I only defend and explain my belief... My God is more than capable of defending Himself, but that is not necessary because He is beyond attack, so I'm relatively certain He see's you as no threat. 

 

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Forcing a satanic statue into a public place was not religious bullying.  Forcing your religion in public IS.

 

I don't see how you differentiate the two? Your essentially saying that one religious symbol is bullying and the other is not.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The separation of church & state does not actually appear anywhere in the constitution; " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  So imo, it assures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And I do tolerate government laws even though I don't agree with all of them. 

 

 

All my responses are honest.. And yes, when you live in a society dominated by a similar belief,  you generally need to make some adjustments and tolerate it, e.g; When in Rome.

 

 

You don't have to be in the majority to discriminate.... And I never said I was persecuted by you? All I'm saying is that you can't demand that the Christmas tree be removed from the white house because your not a Christian. Public places are for the public, and if the country is predominately Christian, minorities need to put up with some Christmas lights, as painful as that may be for you.

 

 

I only defend and explain my belief... My God is more than capable of defending Himself, but that is not necessary because He is beyond attack, so I'm relatively certain He see's you as no threat. 

 

 

I don't see how you differentiate the two? Your essentially saying that one religious symbol is bullying and the other is not.

 

 

 

 

The first symbol is an attack.  The second symbol is a response to that attack.  Still confused?

 

 

[cuchulain]

13 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The separation of church & state does not actually appear anywhere in the constitution; " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  So imo, it assures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. And I do tolerate government laws even though I don't agree with all of them. 

 

 

All my responses are honest.. And yes, when you live in a society dominated by a similar belief,  you generally need to make some adjustments and tolerate it, e.g; When in Rome.

 

 

You don't have to be in the majority to discriminate.... And I never said I was persecuted by you? All I'm saying is that you can't demand that the Christmas tree be removed from the white house because your not a Christian. Public places are for the public, and if the country is predominately Christian, minorities need to put up with some Christmas lights, as painful as that may be for you.

 

 

I only defend and explain my belief... My God is more than capable of defending Himself, but that is not necessary because He is beyond attack, so I'm relatively certain He see's you as no threat. 

 

 

I don't see how you differentiate the two? Your essentially saying that one religious symbol is bullying and the other is not.

The constitution also doesn't include the words right to a fair trial...and you probably understand the judicial system interprets the law, adding to our understanding and the way the law is applied.  Jurisprudence continually uphold a separation of church and state for keeping the government from promoting one religion over another, and from interfering in religion.  i.e. Lack of taxation on religion.

 

You specifically stated we atheists through the satanic temple were persecuting you christians...though your specific wording was different it means the same thing.  Religious bullying, oppressing...it all amounts to the definition of persecution.  Now you straw man the argument by saying 'you' instead of christians.  I call this deceptive attempt to win a failed point.  You are a deceptive person for using deceptive practices.  If you must lie to prove a point, maybe you should reexamine your point or be honest with yourself.

Edited December 24, 2018 by cuchulain

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

The constitution also doesn't include the words right to a fair trial...and you probably understand the judicial system interprets the law, adding to our understanding and the way the law is applied.  Jurisprudence continually uphold a separation of church and state for keeping the government from promoting one religion over another, and from interfering in religion.  i.e. Lack of taxation on religion.

 

You specifically stated we atheists through the satanic temple were persecuting you christians...though your specific wording was different it means the same thing.  Religious bullying, oppressing...it all amounts to the definition of persecution.  Now you straw man the argument by saying 'you' instead of christians.  I call this deceptive attempt to win a failed point.  You are a deceptive person for using deceptive practices.  If you must lie to prove a point, maybe you should reexamine your point or be honest with yourself.

 

 

Yes,  to everything you just said.     

[Dan56]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

You specifically stated we atheists through the satanic temple were persecuting you christians...though your specific wording was different it means the same thing.  Religious bullying, oppressing...it all amounts to the definition of persecution.  Now you straw man the argument by saying 'you' instead of christians.  I call this deceptive attempt to win a failed point.  You are a deceptive person for using deceptive practices.  If you must lie to prove a point, maybe you should reexamine your point or be honest with yourself.

 

No, I never used the word "persecute", so your accusation that I'm reverting to a straw man argument is based on a false premise. I wrote that the Satanic symbol was used to irk & interfere with a Christian holiday. So I've tried to directly address everything point by point and have not attempted to divert the subject. As Jonathan just wrote; "The first symbol is an attack.  The second symbol is a response to that attack". That has always been my point, the 2nd symbol (satanic statue) was not a religious attempt to celebrate a holiday, nor was it a demand for equal access, it was nothing more than a deliberate attack against the Nativity display and an attempt to interfere with a Christian holiday. I don't interpret that as 'persecution', but just an annoyance by a small group of ne'er-do-wells...You may see it differently, but that's how I see it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

No, I never used the word "persecute", so your accusation that I'm reverting to a straw man argument is based on a false premise. I wrote that the Satanic symbol was used to irk & interfere with a Christian holiday. So I've tried to directly address everything point by point and have not attempted to divert the subject. As Jonathan just wrote; "The first symbol is an attack.  The second symbol is a response to that attack". That has always been my point, the 2nd symbol (satanic statue) was not a religious attempt to celebrate a holiday, nor was it a demand for equal access, it was nothing more than a deliberate attack against the Nativity display and an attempt to interfere with a Christian holiday. I don't interpret that as 'persecution', but just an annoyance by a small group of ne'er-do-wells...You may see it differently, but that's how I see it.

 

 

That is exactly how I look at Nativity scenes, on Public land.  An annoyance by a large group of n'er-do-wells.  

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 3:09 PM, Dan56 said:

 

No, I never used the word "persecute", so your accusation that I'm reverting to a straw man argument is based on a false premise. I wrote that the Satanic symbol was used to irk & interfere with a Christian holiday. So I've tried to directly address everything point by point and have not attempted to divert the subject. As Jonathan just wrote; "The first symbol is an attack.  The second symbol is a response to that attack". That has always been my point, the 2nd symbol (satanic statue) was not a religious attempt to celebrate a holiday, nor was it a demand for equal access, it was nothing more than a deliberate attack against the Nativity display and an attempt to interfere with a Christian holiday. I don't interpret that as 'persecution', but just an annoyance by a small group of ne'er-do-wells...You may see it differently, but that's how I see it.

You have repeatedly claimed the Satanists were out to bully your religion.  YOUR WORDS.  Now you try to redefine persecute?

 

FOR DAN>>>SO YOU KNOW.  Persecute:  subject to hostility and ill treatment, especially because of religious beliefs.

 

Now tell me, when you say your religion has been bullied, that the Satanists did it specifically to irk and interfere with your religion, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PERSECUTE???  You LIE...by claiming you aren't saying they are persecuting you.  Plain and simple lie.

 

Remember the "False witness" topic?  Here's some food for thought.  I had two pieces of bread with a piece of lunchmeat and some mustard on it, placed together so the bread was on the outside on both sides...but I never said I had a sandwich for lunch.

Edited December 30, 2018 by cuchulain