Christians

Everyone had slaves in those times they were the labor force of ancient times. The fact that the bible mentions buying and selling slaves isn't something I would make a fuss about.

 

Yeah I saw it man people still do that today back then you had a good 12 kids selling one as a sex slave was more money in your pocket and 1 less mouth to feed. There wasn't the kind of tight knit family like you see today because these people had to work hard and had very little down time. Plus I doubt that article is 100% historically accurate the writer probably took a few verses rewrote them to sound appealing to the type of audience he was writing for. For instance manservent can technically be a slave yes, but it also be a well paid butler.

 

Dude, I think most reasonable people understand that the bible isn't literally the word of god, but a collection of stories and myths that teach morality.

 

Yes, and even so; why would you want to intercept someone else's religious beliefs? Maybe it doesn't work for you, but its obviously provided fundamental ethics to some. I can understand taking an anti-Christian approach if you were physically, mentally, monetarily, or socially persecuted due to its teachings.

But you didn't even take the time to present your case with a passable argument, it was just "Look at this site I found, check out all these links from it, Christianity MUST be a hoax".

 

Ah yes evilbible.com. Yes, Evilbible.com for all your evil bible needs! Teach your religious friends with incorrectly translated verses. Gawk in glee, as you quote the bible out of context to prove your point! Yes at evilbible.com we've got all your anti-christian propaganda. Stomach it all, and accept that all we say on evilbible.com is true.

Evilbible.com

"Yeah man...I hate the bible."

 

I'm an athiest and I'm with you. There's so many translations and translations of translations of the bible that you can find an edition to justify whatever the hell you want it to. This is why I also hate people that try to use the wording of the bible to make a point, when in fact these ancient words are likely not ancient at all, but from the pen of some monk or king. If you want to prove a point based on the wording of the bible, go learn Aramaic.

 

sheesh...that link is a laugh!...

those words are very ancient by the way,,,and aramic is not necessary but all knowledge is good so learn it if you wish....

 

Omg this whole time i could have gone to that website instead of wasting my time being all religions and what not!?

 

People can't seem to fathom that as humanity marches along through it's evolution, it's conception of God becomes more and more complete, higher and higher. Your reading a book from 6000 years ago, maybe people don't think we've evolved spiritually at all in 6000 years, I dunno.

How many christians do you know who think slavery is alright because a book from 600 years ago says it is? Not too many. Hell, slavery is still around in the more savage countries where the people are still low in their development. Even we only just recently banished slavery in our own country (U.S.).

Just wait until your on your death bed from old age, and think back to how life was as a child, and see how much further people have evolved, particularly in their treatment of their fellow man. Just look 50 years into the past and you'll see the rapid progression of mans spiritual unfoldment with the changing energies of our galaxy.

 

If I wanted to know whether a text really did reveal the intentions of a god, I would make sure to see if that god was constructed by their society (have the same morals, practices) or if it transcended cultural paradigms.

The fact that the god of the bible condones and at times even commands enslavement sheds away a lot of credibility in my mind. This god does not surpass the social prejudices of the time, it actively keeps it going like the people themselves. There's no enlightenment or deeper awareness of moral/ethical considerations.

 

Morality definitely does develop over time; it is a social construction. I fail to see how this may be tied to spirituality?

 

Well is there any reason to treat people a certain way other than that little thing in your Mind we call conscience? The Law dictates that it is illegal to kill, but if it were legal, would you go around killing others? And would you not agree that the higher "spiritual" teachers have a more developed conscience in that they seem more "good" or "happy" or "peaceful" than most others in their morality? And do we not attribute unfailing happiness, peace, and goodness to parts of spirituality?

 

I would not kill people if it were legal to do so because of the fact that I would be undermining my own safety in society. It is reciprocal. Generally, if I do not want others to kill me, I do not kill them. There is no "spirituality," but ethical considerations grounded in tangible rationality.

I would also not agree that "higher" "spiritual" "teachers" have a more developed conscience, as there are many of these people who preach violence. These mystics also corrode the values of empiricism and rationalism in society by preaching that "truth" may be obtained through means of blind faith.

I do not attribute happiness, peace, or goodness to anything spiritual. I do have these attributes myself, as many people do, but I do not attribute it to dogmatic assertions of supernaturalism.


I find that the whole word "spiritual" is meaningless. Its definition changes from person to person and it lacks any congruity. For one person, it may be some immaterial world from which all knowledge or "truth" stems from. Another person may just say that it is introspection, whereas another may say that it entails creativity and the appreciation for art.

I could have totally misinterpreted you previously by mentioning "mystics" or "supernaturalism", so can you be more descriptive and not use the term spirituality?