God does NOT exist! (Part 2)

[Grahame 10]

Just assuming for a moment that you think slaves actually means workers, you are now advocating that we all obey our bosses.

 

This is a very risky strategy to be advocating imho. Do you really think that an employee should act dishonestly if his boss tells him too?

 

Since Jesus was known to instruct his followers to steal, I guess you wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

 

I had a similar problem at a previous job and I wasn't happy but the employer has his instructions as well and of course he should be keeping the commandments also.

 

What is this about Jesus stealing?

 

Edit.

I was saying the employers instructions were to look after the slave, and he should not ask him to do anything illegal.

 

.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Grahame

[quisquose 10]

I had a similar problem at a previous job and I wasn't happy but the employer has his instructions as well and of course he should be keeping the commandments also.

 

My underlining.

 

I was put in a difficult moral situation by a previous employer, and I resigned. The employer was put in no doubt that what he was doing was immoral. For me there was no but in a situation like this, and there was no need to refer to scripture.

 

I was only acting under orders is never a justification.

 

.

Edited May 18, 2009 by quisquose
grammar

[quisquose 10]

What is this about Jesus stealing?

 

.

 

For a bit of light relief ...

 

Jesus lived at a time of great gullibility and religious fervour. (Life Of Brian got that right). This particular itinerant preacher had a gang of 12 guys who followed him around. That raises the question - what did these guys do all day? Were these 12 mouths he had to feed just mindless adoring sycophants, following him around, hanging on every word, (though never writing any of it down), and receiving food like manna from heaven, or did they have to earn their keep and deal with daily pressures, necessities, and irritations?

 

Like travelling preachers of today, his staff might have had the duties like those of advance men and roadies who go on ahead, carry the bags, find accommodations, gather firewood, cook, put up posters, manage public relations, grease palms, call in favours, arrange permits, find venues, and a thousand other ad hoc chores.

 

Or were some of their duties more like those of Medicine Show crowd plants who were miraculously cured anew in every town. (We do know that some of their tricks of the trade, like bringing dead people back to life, might have played to the country peasants in those days but don't fly anymore. And faith healing, petty magic and the stuff of tricksters and charlatans - it only works on the ignorant and superstitious, and even then it doesn't last.)

 

At any rate, one could easily believe that at least parts of their days were filled with sometimes mundane duties involved in the support of a travelling faith healing show - things like finding and preparing food for his posse, collecting and handling money, managing transportation, security duties such as screening access to the son of the creator of the universe, etc. Apparently, sometimes those duties included "special ops". Take a look at this account in Luke 19, verses 29 – 36:

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2019;&version=9;

 

29And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,

 

30Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.

 

31And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

 

32And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.

 

33And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?

 

34And they said, The Lord hath need of him.

 

35And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.

 

36And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.

 

That's stealing.

 

[Grahame 10]

My underlining.

 

I was put in a difficult moral situation by a previous employer, and I resigned. The employer was put in no doubt that was he was doing was immoral. For me there was no but in a situation like this, and there was no need to refer to scripture.

 

I was only acting under orders is never a justification.

 

.

 

I was saying the employer shouldn't be asking you to do anything illegal but if you want to read it the wrong way....

 

.

[Karis 11]

Well, you certainly can't feel the love in this thread. All 2000+ posts!

[Grahame 10]

I am familiar with your "Light relief."

 

Jesus knew where the donkey was, he knew no one had ridden it and the chances are if he knew that then he will have known the owner.

 

What are friends for. Jesus knew it would be all-right and of course it was.

 

.

[flamingjimmy 10]

I am familiar with your "Light relief."

 

Jesus knew where the donkey was, he knew no one had ridden it and the chances are if he knew that then he will have known the owner.

 

What are friends for. Jesus knew it would be all-right and of course it was.

 

Wait, so what you are saying is that even though the bible explicitly states that stealing is wrong that it's ok to steal in some circumstances?

 

So having a list of absolute moral commandments with no elbow room is a bit silly isn't it?

[Grahame 10]

Wait, so what you are saying is that even though the bible explicitly states that stealing is wrong that it's ok to steal in some circumstances?

 

So having a list of absolute moral commandments with no elbow room is a bit silly isn't it?

 

I am sure the owner got his donkey back.

 

As for not lying etc., if we know our friends will back us up by lying for us then you open the door to all sorts of things.

 

If you know your friends are going to be truthful you won't do anything wrong.

 

.

[flamingjimmy 10]

I am sure the owner got his donkey back.

 

As for not lying etc., if we know our friends will back us up by lying for us then you open the door to all sorts of things.

 

If you know your friends are going to be truthful you won't do anything wrong.

 

Well, you've just demonstrated a situation where stealing was ok, Jesus even says so.

 

Earlier on the first part of this thread someone highlighted a situation like the one which faced Germans who helped to hide Jews during the war where lying to the authorities was not just ok, but was without a doubt the correct moral choice.

 

I personally believe that it would be ok for me to kill someone if they were intent on killing an innocent person and that was the only way I could stop them. So there's a situation where killing is ok.

 

If my parents were violent and abusive, I would be stupid to respect and honour them.

 

Having absolute moral guidelines is silly. Do you agree?

[devil6 10]

POSTED BY GRAHAME ON PART ONE:

You talk daft. The Ten Commandments say not to kill. If you do you are obviously are not living according to God's law.

 

I was pointing out that Bush and Blair read and follow the same piece of scripture as you, and yet find it acceptable to bomb innocent muslims. The ten commandments may include "thou shalt not kill" but language experts agree this applies only to jewish neighbours. "thou shalt not kill thy jewish neighbour", rather ridiculous when put in modern termonolgy.

 

When you say they are not living according to gods law, would this be the same god who ordered Moses to wipe out an entire race? Thou shalt not kill, unless it suits god on that particular day.

 

Can you not accept the hypocracies in your scripture? Because to any balanced mind it's as plain as the light of day.

 

In all honesty-do you defend all of your scripture? Do you not accept some of it is outdated? Some of it not true? Some of it harsh? Some of it unlikely?? This is a 100% genuine question.

[Grahame 10]

Well, you've just demonstrated a situation where stealing was ok, Jesus even says so.

 

Earlier on the first part of this thread someone highlighted a situation like the one which faced Germans who helped to hide Jews during the war where lying to the authorities was not just ok, but was without a doubt the correct moral choice.

 

I personally believe that it would be ok for me to kill someone if they were intent on killing an innocent person and that was the only way I could stop them. So there's a situation where killing is ok.

 

If my parents were violent and abusive, I would be stupid to respect and honour them.

 

Having absolute moral guidelines is silly. Do you agree?

 

The disciples took the donkey with the owners consent.

 

The rest is a matter for debate. Perhaps some other time?

 

.

[Grahame 10]

POSTED BY GRAHAME ON PART ONE:

You talk daft. The Ten Commandments say not to kill. If you do you are obviously are not living according to God's law.

 

I was pointing out that Bush and Blair read and follow the same piece of scripture as you, and yet find it acceptable to bomb innocent muslims. The ten commandments may include "thou shalt not kill" but language experts agree this applies only to jewish neighbours. "thou shalt not kill thy jewish neighbour", rather ridiculous when put in modern termonolgy.

 

When you say they are not living according to gods law, would this be the same god who ordered Moses to wipe out an entire race? Thou shalt not kill, unless it suits god on that particular day.

 

Can you not accept the hypocracies in your scripture? Because to any balanced mind it's as plain as the light of day.

 

In all honesty-do you defend all of your scripture? Do you not accept some of it is outdated? Some of it not true? Some of it harsh? Some of it unlikely?? This is a 100% genuine question.

 

You need to compare like with like and the Old Testament is the history of a nation while the New Testament is about Christianity.

 

If it says "Rolex" on a watch it does not mean it is, the same with people who say they are "Christian."

 

.