If you remove monuments of slave owners, then also don't endorse the books they wrote (Bible).

So if I can show you in the Bible where it expressly approves of slavery you'd condemn god for being immoral, right?

 

According to you God doesn't exist, right? If that's the case how can a non existent God be evil? Just askin'.

 

And I thought you said you didn't think God had to be in absolute control of everything? Sorry but free will necessitates people have a choice. Why then free will, free will is needed for love to exist

 

He doesn't exist, you are right - but those that believe in an evil "god" would be evil themselves. "God" is not directly the issue, but the incredibly immorality of religious people. We have religious people, because their god approves of torture, burning people alive in Iraq- the evil of religion knows no bounds.
To be fair, god/Jesus (not just Allah/Mohammad) also believes in torture, since that psycho sends innocent people to a "lake of fire", so god/Jesus is far far worse than ISIS is because he'll do this in the BILLIONS of people, and ISIS only tortures a few dozen, probably.

 

In this instance you are judging God because his standards are higher than yours. Too funny. Why should Gods standards be man's standards? Because you think it would be better that way? Get back to me when you are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

 

He's not really omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - religions are just created by men (almost all the creators of religions are men, think about that!) to control you. I attack their "god" because his story is always so full of holes that a Mack truck could drive through the holes!

 

No, god's standards are NOT HIGHER THAN MINE in this example!

 

Actually it is you who is wrong. You have shown us all you don't understand the passage.

 

You can't condemn god for only defining marriage as between man and woman, can you? I can, because I care people more than god/Jesus care for people.

 

I love it how my critics always say "you don't understand that passage!!!!!!!!", but never ever proactively give the true CORRECT understanding! I see right through them.

So tell us, oh wise one, what the true CORRECT understanding of that passage is. You condemned me, so I'm having to call you out.

 

Can you condemn god for approving of killing slaves....and, uh, for approving of slavery in the first place!? The passage doesn't say "let your slaves go....", now does it!!! A loving god would say that!! Would YOU say that if you were in god's shoes? I would, because I'm more loving than your imaginary invisible friend in the sky is, obviously.

 

Sticks and stones may break your bones and words will always harm you?

 

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. What terrible deeds did some Christian do to you in Jesus' name?

 

The text does not condone the beating of the slave at all. Rather, the text is describing what the punishment is *for* beating one’s slave to death. That is, the text actually *condemns* beating a slave to death. In the one case, the slave owner is punished by being put to death. In the other case, which is an unintentional death by beating, the slave owner is punished in terms of his own financial loss from having beaten his slave to death. The implication is that he did not intend to kill his slave, but was still wrong in beating the slave. Otherwise there would be no mention of punishment in either case. But as it is, there is a punishment in both cases here for beating a slave to death. In the first case of intentionally beating a slave to death, the slave owner is likewise to be put to death. In the second case of unintentionally beating a slave to death, the slave owner’s own foolish financial loss serves as his punishment.

Perhaps you should try studying the text next time on your own (not an atheist site that references the text), or reading some commentaries, and you won’t make such silly mistakes, reading the text the exact *opposite* way from which it is to be read.

 

It is always a sign of debate weakness to assert the personal views of an opponent such as you posting "if this god of yours."

You seem to think if there is a God that God had some duty to tell everyone what to do and control freak everything for your benefit. Why do you God would have to do anything for you, protect you or not harm you? It would seem if there is an all-powerful God that God could do or not do anything and if don't like it that's your tough luck.

 

Jesus doesn't just TELL my family that, but that bully will see to it (according to the barbaric Buybull) that they ACTUALLY do get burned, alive, in Jesus' own Auschwitz (the barbaric "lake of fire" for all non-believers, in the barbaric Bible.)

 

This god in question IS (apparently) yours, and not mine - I was just being honest. This psycho "god" killed virtually all humans on earth in his "flood" (all he had to do was forgive them!!). I'm too moral to accept a god like that....are you? Or is virtual genocide fine with you? If so, then you might like this guy I've heard about named "Adolf", who had a funny mustache, and apparently only one ball.

 

What he probably is claiming is that as solely a secular humanist view, a person could beat a slave to death and God has no right to try to prevent or urging punishing anyone who does so.

In that era, all laws come from one of two sources:
1. I, the dictator say so or
2. God says so.

If there is no God and really #2 is humans say so, then there is no difference between religion and secular humanism at all. Even if from God, since it up to humans to comply as a matter of free will, it ultimately always comes back to humanism, not divinity.

 

If he gets away with beating a slave (that dies after a day or two), then the Bible is utterly and completely immoral, to be sure. I think we can agree that if this invisible friend in the sky was ethical IN THE FIRST PLACE he wouldn't be telling us proper slave-beating punishment, but would have simply said "write this down, end slavery w/in the next 25 years", obviously. But like most apologists for the barbarity in the bible, I'm sure you can justify slavery - showing yet again the desperate need for Modern Secular Humanism in the world today.

 

No, ultimately I'm saying that Christians are highly immoral for giving their children a book, and saying it's the basis for their overall belief system/religion, that approves of slavery in the first place - in 2017 it approves of slavery!!...have they no ethics??

 

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. You are approving of there being no legal punishment for beating a slave to death - even if the the death is unintentional!! Yulee, in the ethical world we don't have slaves in the first place and if they (even unintentionally) beat that slave to death there is legal punishment!! Incredible. I'm debating people who approve of slavery and no legal punishment for beating a slave to death.

 

They create delusional minds for 2.1 billion people.

 

You seem to think that I'm so selfish that I couldn't work to condemn religion unless I myself was personally harmed by a religious person....no, I just care for the TRUTH enough to condemn beliefs that are unscientific, immoral, and are clearly not what's best for the world.

 

I'm pretty certain that you believe that quarks and the Higgs Boson exist freedomseeker and that you are NOT a particle physicist whom has done original research.

Oh that's right. You've read it in a textbook. A book written by actual particle physicists using methodology and technology you do not comprehend.

But you have faith in them and the scientific community.

No difference.

 

So let's say I take your mom as a slave (yes, I'm joking, but trying to prove a point), and I beat her, and she dies, but it was unintentional that she died, then you are completely fine apparently with me getting away with it, LEGALLY, scot-free, right? Or do you condemn the Bible/god for their immorality? Which is it, Yulee?