Raf

Why do we assume that brainwashing and choice are antithetical to each other?

For the record, if I have quoted Sam Harris, it's by accident. While I am aware that he has addressed issues of morality and I have read some of his stuff, I am not consciously quoting him or citing him. For whatever that's worth. :)

:)

I guessed based on Braddock being the title of one of the MIA movies. The other two fell into place. Ben Affleck Christopher Pine Alec Baldwin

LACKS a sense of humor?

That last post was, of course, completely sarcastic. I was attempting to illustrate what I brought up in another thread, the outsider test. We tend to apply our critical thinking skills differently for religions we oppose than we do for religions we embrace. We do not presume Islam to be correct until disproved. We do not presume Allah's atrocities are to be understood in light of his professed mercy and compassion. But Yahweh? Yahweh is love! If he appears to be unjust, the problem must be with my understanding. Allah gets no such allowance. The only difference between them is the name, and the presumptions we make when approaching their attributes.

But the Quran says Allah is merciful and compassionate, so all of his laws and behaviors need to be understood in the CONTEXT of his mercy and compassion. Have you done word studies on the Quran to determine why you fail to recognize Allah's mercy and compassion where it is evident?

Chuck Norris

Busted!!! http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_27616870/minnesota-brides-christ-cult-leader-arrested-brazil?source=rss Courtesy of Jeff Sjolander

The Graduate. "Yo Adrian! I did it!"

Dana Carvey Master of Disguise Brent Spiner

Two observations. One, you omitted at least two ways to become an ebed, neither of which passes anything resembling moral muster. You could be born into it, which is no fault of the child. Or you could be sold by your father (if you were a woman) which is not voluntary for the woman and is therefore a moral outrage. Curious that you omitted those, especially the born into it part. Second, your appeal to cultural relativism in the case of foreign born slaves falls flat on at least two levels. First, it does not matter that they were treated better by the Hebrews who owned them than by their kinsmen would have treated their slaves. The issue is whether it was moral for the Hebrews to own foreign slaves at all, not whether they were nicer slave masters than the surrounding nations. Secondly, and more significantly, many of the protections for Hebrew born slaves that you seem to think (but have yet to show) makes their enslavement more morally palatable simply did not exist for foreign born slaves. So the problem for you now becomes, was Israel's enslavement of foreigners moral? You've finally made some salient points. But our weekend begins. See you on the other side of it.

Not sure you got the privilege of seeing Walken in Peter Pan Live. It was. Really. It was.

Mrs Wolf is correct.

Overall, I think I've made my point and I do not plan to continue posting allegations on this thread. If anyone would like to address anything I've posted, I'll be more than happy to explore whatever issues you raise. Of course, if this thread gets exciting the way the old SIT thread did, I reserve the right to revisit that decision. There are still plenty of verses to explore.

Deuteronomy 22: 13 “If any man take a wife and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her and say, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found her not a maid,’ 15 then shall the father of the damsel and her mother take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, ‘I gave my daughter unto this man for a wife, and he hateth her; 17 and lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, “I found not thy daughter a maid,” and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Holy... So if a woman is not a virginwhen she's married, she DIES. Horribly. Do you think that's an appropriate punishment? If you don't, I submit that you are more moral than Yahweh. Please note, there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that so much as HINTS at a similar punishment for a MAN who is not a virgin when he gets married. PLEASE correct me if I am mistaken. I am not wedded to this observation (no pun intended). 28 “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her [THIS IS RAPE, BY THE WAY. IT IS TRANSLATED AS SUCH IN NUMEROUS VERSIONS. IF A WORD STUDY REVEALS OTHERWISE, DO ENLIGHTEN ME], and they be found, 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. So, if a woman is raped and she's not married, the rapist pays the victim (her father. Her father is the victim) and as part of his punishment gets to has to MARRY THE GIRL! That'll teach him! Do you think that's the appropriate "punishment" for a rapist? If not, I submit you are more moral than Yahweh!

You like that show. Gentle Ben 10

Mark attacked the subject directly with his NBD excerpt. I gave it only a casual treatment. If anyone thinks it raised points I have failed to rebut, I'm willing to revisit it. I also recommend articles by Paul Copan, which make a valiant (and in my opinion insufficient) effort to tackle what is certainly a difficult issue. In the meantime, unless something changes, I'm going to feel free to raise other issues. And WordWolf, you teased a salient point, and I'm genuinely looking forward to you making it. ;)/>

It was a warm summer evening in ancient Greece... "If only there was a discussion we'd be much further along." Well maybe there WOULD be a discussion if you would address a point instead if dancing around it so much. God is love. Family was important. Waiting for the part where any of this validates a man holding a wife and son hostage unless the husband agrees to be his slave for life. And waiting. And waiting.

Cuckoo's nest was before Jaws. This would be Coma

Wolf, you're up. It's Jurassic World War Z

While we're waiting, let us consider another example of rank immorality prescribed by the author of absolute, objective morality. I want you to imagine you're a woman, and you see your husband fighting another man. In an act of defending your husband, you get behind the assailant and grab him by the balls. This distracts the guy long enough for your husband to escape harm. How should you be punished? No, I'm serious. The woman gets punished for this. I'm NOT KIDDING. She touched the family jewels! What should her punishment be? If you said "cut off her hand, show her no mercy," congratulations! Not only are you allowed in the Cobra Kai Dojo, but you are also as moral as Yahweh! Yahweh says, CUT OFF HER BLEEPING HAND. No...MERCY! Now, I KNOW the Bible says love your neighbor as yourself. The Bible ALSO says cut off the hand of a woman who touches another man's privates when that man is fighting her husband (how often was this happening that a law needed to be made out of it... AND WHAT ABOUT THE TWO MEN FIGHTING?) There's only one conclusion that can be drawn from this. According to the Bible, it is NOT unloving to cut off a woman's hand if she touches the privates of a man fighting her husband. Just like it is not unloving to hold a woman and son hostage unless the husband/father, who has earned his freedom, commits to slavery for life. Mutilating crotch grabbers and holding slave women and children hostage IS LOVING, according to the Bible! Or you could just admit that this is a contradiction. Could you? Could you do that? My position: You can, IF you are more moral than Yahweh (spoiler alert: you are!)

Dustin Hoffman Christopher Walken Jason Isaacs

Keanu Reeves

If your next post doesn't advance the discussion, I will not be replying. It's been two weeks. Praises from Mark aside, you've not actually made a single relevant point that directly addresses any issue we've raised here. Nothing but "It was a warm summer evening in ancient Greece." Get to the point already.