"ALL moral standards and values are man-made"

csbrown28 · Oct 8, 2015

tosca1 said:
18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

Not sure what that has to do with what RD was talking about. Ok so you can't hit a free man with a rock if it causes him to miss work. What does this have to do with beating your slave whose work you own?

tosca1 said:
There's more to that than just that apparently, such as the reason why the slave was beaten in the first place. Do you know?

Nope, but the bible doen't give a list of things you can beat a slave for, it just states that you can. For that matter, it doesn't state that the save has to have done anything wrong for you to be able to beat him.

tosca1 said:
That law you gave was preceded by the previous example of similar consequence except that the people involved were non-slaves - as you can see, there was a reason given: fighting between two people. Therefore, there were reasons for the beatings of slaves - and the law was given to protect slaves from beatings that result in deaths!

Whew, that's a relief.....The bible allows you to beat you slave, but hey, you can't kill him!! How compassionate the Bible is!

tosca1 said:
The other laws on Exodus 21 suggest that cruelty was not allowed, otherwise there wouldn't be these laws pertaining to slaves:

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye.
27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Wow, again, the power of the compassion of your book. Anything less than losing a tooth or an eye is no big deal, right?

tosca1 said:
-----------------------------

And here's Exodus 21 stating clearly that abduction , whether for the purpose of selling or not, is punishable by death!

16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

Therefore, human trafficking is punishable by death!

----------------------------------------------

Clearly the punishment fits the crime. /sarcasim off..... Again, more immorality in the bible glossed over.

tosca1 said:
Oppression of slaves was prohibited!

Deuteronomy 23

Miscellaneous Laws

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.
16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Yes, and you know that these rules were followed, right?

tosca1 · Oct 8, 2015

roughdraft274 said:
You completely missed the verse. You quoted it and then went on to talk about other verses. If there is something in the bible that says that this verse only applies to certain situations, point it out. Otherwise, you need to explain whether this is moral or immoral.

:lol:

That's how you read and understand the BIble. You don't simply take one verse and use that alone. You have to read the whole chapter, and sometimes you have to cross-check with other verses in different chapters.

That's what I mean.....you guys can't simply criticize without understanding. That's why there is such a thing called Bible Study.
Even scholars study the Scriptures - it involves so many things, from understanding the custom, to the way they talk.
Arabs have a dramatically poetic way of talking.

Just take a look at the next law about slaves:

Exodus 21
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Does that law pertains literally only to the eyes and teeth? Or could it mean if the slave got incapacitated in any way?

Anyway, Deuteronomy 23 was clear enough: God was protecting the slaves. He even stated letting them have the choice.

Miscellaneous Laws

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.

16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose.

Do not oppress them.

tosca1 · Oct 8, 2015

csbrown28 said:
Not sure what that has to do with what RD was talking about. Ok so you can't hit a free man with a rock if it causes him to miss work. What does this have to do with beating your slave whose work you own?

Nope, but the bible doen't give a list of things you can beat a slave for, it just states that you can. For that matter, it doesn't state that the save has to have done anything wrong for you to be able to beat him.

Whew, that's a relief.....The bible allows you to beat you slave, but hey, you can't kill him!! How compassionate the Bible is!

Wow, again, the power of the compassion of your book. Anything less than losing a tooth or an eye is no big deal, right?

Clearly the punishment fits the crime. /sarcasim off..... Again, more immorality in the bible glossed over.

Yes, and you know that these rules were followed, right?

Whether they're followed or not....does not mean there weren't any laws protecting the slaves.

That would kinda be like me saying...."yeah, yeah, so we have these laws against murder and theft and child abuse and exploitation....but yes, you know that these rules are followed, right?"

Don't we have laws against murder, theft, child abuse and exploitation, or not?

tosca1 · Oct 8, 2015

csbrown28 said:
Not sure what that has to do with what RD was talking about. Ok so you can't hit a free man with a rock if it causes him to miss work. What does this have to do with beating your slave whose work you own?

Nope, but the bible doen't give a list of things you can beat a slave for, it just states that you can. For that matter, it doesn't state that the save has to have done anything wrong for you to be able to beat him.

Whew, that's a relief.....The bible allows you to beat you slave, but hey, you can't kill him!! How compassionate the Bible is!

Wow, again, the power of the compassion of your book. Anything less than losing a tooth or an eye is no big deal, right?

Clearly the punishment fits the crime. /sarcasim off..... Again, more immorality in the bible glossed over.

Yes, and you know that these rules were followed, right?

refer to #802.

You have to know how to use the Bible, for one thing.

Deuteronomy says it all: DO NOT OPPRESS THEM.

Quag · Oct 8, 2015

tosca1 said:
No, I'm not! There were laws protecting slaves/servants.

making slavery/indentured servitude legal doesn't make it moral.

You're the one who's making comparison of God-tolerated form of slavery to that of modern-day slavery!

No I already said your version of slavery is immoral as well. What I am saying and what you are refusing to recognize is that slavery in the bible is not ONLY as depicted by you.
You cannot pick and choose which passages were the word of the Lord and which were just societal customs.
Well you can but then your are INTERPRETING the word of the Lord and making it subjective.

Quag · Oct 8, 2015

tosca1 said:
You don't understand what you're reading.

No I think the major problem here is that you were homeschooled and only one textbook was used (mind you it was a 2 part one) Even then certain parts of your textbook were subjectively taken as literal and other not.

Quag · Oct 8, 2015

tosca1 said:
Answer the question!

Do you consider military service in the USA, as immoral?

No and neither is it indentured servitude, you strawman fails.

Mach · Oct 8, 2015

tosca1 said:
What do you understand by morality?

Figuring out good behavior vs bad behavior. What did you think I meant?

tosca1 · Oct 9, 2015

Quag said:
No and neither is it indentured servitude, you strawman fails.

The principle is similar to indentured servitude! That's the point!

A young man is promised adventure seeing other places and the chance to advance himself, in exchange for his service at a specified amount of time, and his compliance to the strict rules and regulations of the US Navy.
A lot of young people who has no financial means to have higher education join for those reasons!

Like you, I don't find it immoral either.

Here are some of the rules and regulations on LIBERTY:

Liberty is ‘time off’ from the daily work routine. Graduating Sailors will be granted daytime liberty after graduation to spend time off-base with their families and friends. Sailors are expected to act responsibly and maintain military bearing while interacting in a civilian environment.

Graduating Sailors are prohibited from using tobacco products or consuming alcoholic beverages at any time while on liberty, regardless of age.
Graduating Sailors are prohibited from operating any motorized vehicles.
Graduating Sailors must remain in their complete uniform while on liberty. If they are engaging in physical activity or swimming, they must wear the authorized Navy issued workout gear.
Food, tobacco products, video cameras, cell phones, or any other portable electronic shall not be brought back to RTC.
Graduating Sailors departing RTC for follow-on training the same day as graduation or those who are in a duty status will be granted limited on-base liberty.

Graduating Sailors must stay within a 50-mile radius of RTC.
Graduating Sailors receive an in-depth liberty briefing prior to their graduation day.

Recruit Training Command - Rules on Liberty

Liberty is subject to duty status, if a sailor is on duty, they must remain on base and must muster (roll call) several times a day, and possibly stand watches (think guard duty on the quarterdeck). As a sailor goes through A school, they may earn more privileges and have more liberal liberty policies, such as wearing civilian clothes.

The fleet ... all depends on operational needs of the Navy. A sailor may have leave on the books, up to 60 days, but if the ship needs him, he can't take leave.

Leave vs. Liberty - Navy For Moms

For some Sailors, however, getting the full eight hours of sleep is difficult. "I typically sleep about five to six hours per night," said Air Traffic Controller 2nd Class Jack Lazenby of air department aboard the Battle Cat, Kitty Hawk. "Anytime anything is flying, we're working."

According to Lazenby, Sailors in his shop sometimes have to work until 1 a.m. and must be back at work by 7:30 a.m. "Our job can be stressful, but we still try to get as much sleep as possible."

Long Hour Sailors Need Plenty of Rest

Navy: AWOL sailor on the run

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Local and military authorities are searching for signs of an AWOL sailor who escaped from military custody Wednesday evening, according to Naval Air Station Jacksonville officials.

The unidentified sailor, who was supposed to be serving aboard the USS Iwo Jima, had gone AWOL, a Navy spokesperson told First Coast News.

He was reportedly being taken to a pre-trial detention facility about 5 p.m. when he somehow escaped and ran across U.S. 17 into Tillie K. Fowler Regional Park on Roosevelt Boulevard.

Navy: AWOL sailor on the run

AWOL and DESERTION

Many people confuse the terms, AWOL and Desertion. Some people believe that AWOL is when someone is absent for less than 30 days, and someone absent from the military for 30 days or more is a deserter. That's not quite true.

Unauthorized absence from the military fall under three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 85, Desertion, Article 86, AWOL, and Article 87, Missing Movement. Of the three, Desertion is the most serious offense.

Did you know that desertion can result in the death penalty? It's true. The maximum punishment for desertion during "time of war" is death.However, since the Civil War, only one American servicemember has ever been executed for desertion -- Private Eddie Slovik in 1945.

AWOL and Desertion in the US Military

tosca1 · Oct 9, 2015

Mach said:
Figuring out good behavior vs bad behavior. What did you think I meant?

You are both wrong. Reality is where morality originates. The "feeling" of wanting to live, and not die, is not "man-made". It's an evolutionary adaptation, necessitated in that if an entity is to survive, those that don't prioritize survival were out competed. This occurred well before "man" evolved, and will continue well after we are extinct (in the general sense!)

"Survival." Anyone's definition of it.

Anyway....that argument had been dealt with already. It still does not explain how mankind got to know good and bad.

If it's all about "feeling" of wanting to live - any act that ensures my survival should be, and is, acceptable.

I can kill without any qualms, and it should be acceptable, if I do it for my "survival."
What exactly do I mean by, "survival?" If I'm hungry, I can kill anyone for the food they have. In wintertime, I can kill for warm coats or boots.

That's SUBJECTIVE MORALITY!

If there is no objective standard morality to use for basis - everyone will have their own definition of "survival" and their own reasons for killing.
If that were the case, we would be having ala- MAD MAX post-apocalyptic-type of scenario.

Review this video. It offers a clear explanation:

csbrown28 · Oct 9, 2015

tosca1 said:
Answer the question!

Do you consider military service in the USA, as immoral?

How can it be? People choose to do it, they are compensated and they don't loose their rights because they agree to join.

csbrown28 · Oct 9, 2015

tosca1 said:
Whether they're followed or not....does not mean there weren't any laws protecting the slaves.

That would kinda be like me saying...."yeah, yeah, so we have these laws against murder and theft and child abuse and exploitation....but yes, you know that these rules are followed, right?"

Don't we have laws against murder, theft, child abuse and exploitation, or not?

And so you gloss over all but my last reply. That's called cherry picking.

Quag · Oct 9, 2015

tosca1 said:
The principle is similar to indentured servitude! That's the point!

Military service is not same as indentured service, your strawman like every other argument you have tried fails.

Quag · Oct 9, 2015

csbrown28 said:
And so you gloss over all but my last reply. That's called cherry picking.

Its what she does with the bible she claims to follow, pick what she likes and pretend the rest doesn't matter.

tosca1 · Oct 10, 2015

csbrown28 said:
How can it be? People choose to do it, they are compensated and they don't loose their rights because they agree to join.

You better backtrack and read the conversation between Quag and I about indentured servitude.

You should read. Period.

tosca1 · Oct 10, 2015

csbrown28 said:
And so you gloss over all but my last reply. That's called cherry picking.

Nope, it's not.
Your last reply has no substance to it. It's merely filled with your own opinion that's not backed by anything at all. No replies needed or required.
Go ahead and review it.

When it comes to responses such as those....I can cherry pick which silly replies I want to respond to.

tosca1 · Oct 10, 2015

Quag said:
Its what she does with the bible she claims to follow, pick what she likes and pretend the rest doesn't matter.

Well? That describes your style. :lol:
Pick and choose verses or biblical incidents - like slavery! - that suit your own narratives.
More likely too, those arguments were taken from some anti-Christian or anti-Bible sites that provide those verses/incidents. If it hadn't been for those sites, most of you atheists here most likely wouldn't even know about those verses at all. Unfortunately, those sites give so-called arguments based on ignorance. You're simply repeating the same.

You both don't know how to use the Bible.

You can't even see that indentured servitude and enlisting in the US Navy, has similar principles, Quag......it's not surprising that you're out of your depth with the Bible.

What I've told you about the Bible is simply the basic - I'm still studying it. I've lot more studying to do to understand.
I haven't even done any serious, in-depth studying of the Gospels, or books by the Apostles.

tosca1 · Oct 10, 2015

Quag said:
Military service is not same as indentured service, your strawman like every other argument you have tried fails.

Same PRINCIPLE! Which part of that is hard to understand?

Come to think of it, do you know what principle means?

Read these again for comparison, and explain why you say they don't share the same principle.

Indentured servitude was a labor system whereby young people paid for their passage to the New World by working for an employer for a certain number of years. It was widely employed in the 18th century in the British colonies in North America and elsewhere. It was especially used as a way for poor youth in Britain and the German states to get passage to the American colonies. They would work for a fixed number of years, then be free to work on their own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

tosca1 said:
The principle is similar to indentured servitude! That's the point!

A young man is promised adventure seeing other places and the chance to advance himself, in exchange for his service at a specified amount of time, and his compliance to the strict rules and regulations of the US Navy.
A lot of young people who has no financial means to have higher education join for those reasons!

Like you, I don't find it immoral either.

Here are some of the rules and regulations on LIBERTY:

Liberty is ‘time off’ from the daily work routine. Graduating Sailors will be granted daytime liberty after graduation to spend time off-base with their families and friends. Sailors are expected to act responsibly and maintain military bearing while interacting in a civilian environment.

Recruit Training Command - Rules on Liberty

Liberty is subject to duty status, if a sailor is on duty, they must remain on base and must muster (roll call) several times a day, and possibly stand watches (think guard duty on the quarterdeck). As a sailor goes through A school, they may earn more privileges and have more liberal liberty policies, such as wearing civilian clothes.

The fleet ... all depends on operational needs of the Navy. A sailor may have leave on the books, up to 60 days, but if the ship needs him, he can't take leave.

Leave vs. Liberty - Navy For Moms

For some Sailors, however, getting the full eight hours of sleep is difficult. "I typically sleep about five to six hours per night," said Air Traffic Controller 2nd Class Jack Lazenby of air department aboard the Battle Cat, Kitty Hawk. "Anytime anything is flying, we're working."

According to Lazenby, Sailors in his shop sometimes have to work until 1 a.m. and must be back at work by 7:30 a.m. "Our job can be stressful, but we still try to get as much sleep as possible."

Long Hour Sailors Need Plenty of Rest

Navy: AWOL sailor on the run

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Local and military authorities are searching for signs of an AWOL sailor who escaped from military custody Wednesday evening, according to Naval Air Station Jacksonville officials.

The unidentified sailor, who was supposed to be serving aboard the USS Iwo Jima, had gone AWOL, a Navy spokesperson told First Coast News.

He was reportedly being taken to a pre-trial detention facility about 5 p.m. when he somehow escaped and ran across U.S. 17 into Tillie K. Fowler Regional Park on Roosevelt Boulevard.

Navy: AWOL sailor on the run

AWOL and DESERTION

Many people confuse the terms, AWOL and Desertion. Some people believe that AWOL is when someone is absent for less than 30 days, and someone absent from the military for 30 days or more is a deserter. That's not quite true.

Unauthorized absence from the military fall under three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article 85, Desertion, Article 86, AWOL, and Article 87, Missing Movement. Of the three, Desertion is the most serious offense.

Did you know that desertion can result in the death penalty? It's true. The maximum punishment for desertion during "time of war" is death.However, since the Civil War, only one American servicemember has ever been executed for desertion -- Private Eddie Slovik in 1945.

AWOL and Desertion in the US Military

tosca1 · Oct 10, 2015

Quag said:
Military service is not same as indentured service, your strawman like every other argument you have tried fails.

According to this article, it is!

Here is an interesting article from the Harvard Crimson, although "drafting" isn't exactly what makes this similar to indentured servitude since we know that being indentured can also be voluntary:

An Army of Indentured Servants

Specifically, focus has suddenly been thrown to the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (HR163), which, among other things, could be used to reinstate a military draft. Despite gaining its notoriety for that possibility, HR163 isn’t merely a “draft” at all. It’s a plan for indentured servitude to the President of the United States.

HR163 has some people ready to run for the borders mostly because the legislation would require two years of mandatory “national service,” which could be required as active duty in the uniformed services. In other words “the draft.”

An Army of Indentured Servants | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

You don't have to be "drafted" to be indentured.

Indentured servitude was a labor system whereby young people paid for their passage to the New World by working for an employer for a certain number of years. It was widely employed in the 18th century in the British colonies in North America and elsewhere. It was especially used as a way for poor youth in Britain and the German states to get passage to the American colonies. They would work for a fixed number of years, then be free to work on their own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

As we see from the explanation about indentured servitude in the old days.....you can volunteer.

Indentured - we don't use that term anymore.....but, same idea.:shrug:

Quag · Oct 10, 2015

tosca1 said:
Well? That describes your style. :lol:
Pick and choose verses or biblical incidents - like slavery! - that suit your own narratives.
More likely too, those arguments were taken from some anti-Christian or anti-Bible sites that provide those verses/incidents. If it hadn't been for those sites, most of you atheists here most likely wouldn't even know about those verses at all. Unfortunately, those sites give so-called arguments based on ignorance. You're simply repeating the same.

You both don't know how to use the Bible.

You can't even see that indentured servitude and enlisting in the US Navy, has similar principles, Quag......it's not surprising that you're out of your depth with the Bible.

What I've told you about the Bible is simply the basic - I'm still studying it. I've lot more studying to do to understand.
I haven't even done any serious, in-depth studying of the Gospels, or books by the Apostles.

You pick and choose the parts you want to believe are actually Gods word and which are just customs of the time. 100,500,1000, 1500 years ago your interpretation would have been different. You can deny this and pretend it isn't true but history has shown it to be so.

Quag · Oct 10, 2015

tosca1 said:
Same PRINCIPLE! Which part of that is hard to understand?

Come to think of it, do you know what principle means?

Read these again for comparison, and explain why you say they don't share the same principle.

Indentured servitude was a labor system whereby young people paid for their passage to the New World by working for an employer for a certain number of years. It was widely employed in the 18th century in the British colonies in North America and elsewhere. It was especially used as a way for poor youth in Britain and the German states to get passage to the American colonies. They would work for a fixed number of years, then be free to work on their own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

Nope not the same.
Sorry strawman fails.
Slavery and indentured servitude remain immoral and if you think otherwise then you are immoral.

Quag · Oct 10, 2015

tosca1 said:
According to this article, it is!

Here is an interesting article from the Harvard Crimson, although "drafting" isn't exactly what makes this similar to indentured servitude since we know that being indentured can also be voluntary:

An Army of Indentured Servants

Specifically, focus has suddenly been thrown to the Universal National Service Act of 2003 (HR163), which, among other things, could be used to reinstate a military draft. Despite gaining its notoriety for that possibility, HR163 isn’t merely a “draft” at all. It’s a plan for indentured servitude to the President of the United States.

HR163 has some people ready to run for the borders mostly because the legislation would require two years of mandatory “national service,” which could be required as active duty in the uniformed services. In other words “the draft.”

An Army of Indentured Servants | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

You don't have to be "drafted" to be indentured.

Indentured servitude was a labor system whereby young people paid for their passage to the New World by working for an employer for a certain number of years. It was widely employed in the 18th century in the British colonies in North America and elsewhere. It was especially used as a way for poor youth in Britain and the German states to get passage to the American colonies. They would work for a fixed number of years, then be free to work on their own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

As we see from the explanation about indentured servitude in the old days.....you can volunteer.

Indentured - we don't use that term anymore.....but, same idea.:shrug:

Not the same sorry.

Quag · Oct 10, 2015

For those who are claiming objective morality.
For morality to be objective there must be some way of determining if something is moral or immoral and that must never change regardless of the time/place/society that we are looking at.
Please explain the measurement used to decide upon morality of something. because if you dont have one or if it changes over time/place/society then it is subjective.

tosca1 · Oct 10, 2015

Quag said:
For those who are claiming objective morality.
For morality to be objective there must be some way of determining if something is moral or immoral and that must never change regardless of the time/place/society that we are looking at.
Please explain the measurement used to decide upon morality of something. because if you dont have one or if it changes over time/place/society then it is subjective.

Based on your previous replies to my arguments......it's pointless to go on with you.

Bye-bye.

Quag · Oct 11, 2015

tosca1 said:
Based on your previous replies to my arguments......it's pointless to go on with you.

Bye-bye.

Based on your previous replies you are ignorant of history and are severley lacking in logic.
As to my actual question we both knowe you wont answer it because you cant. Itcomepltely dfestroys you claim that morals are objective.
Game over, as usual you lose.