 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
An explanation I never found satisfactory. He is basicly saying they were allowed to commit a wrong because they were bad people. |
Berzerker,
clearly you have a problem with both Jesus and Paul, not just Paul. It is dishonest to reject Paul as not conforming with Christianity, when you don't accept Jesus.
It makes sense to me that God will not provide everything all at once, and rather progressively reveal himself to man. This is part of the point of the Mosaic Law, that you teach to the level at which people can understand. If you change their behavior for the better, have you not won part of the victory?
You ignored my points about equality, that Paul taught the equality of all persons, which is anathema to slavery as an institution.
quote:
Did he ask that a friend be freed? Apparently. |
Now we're getting somewhere! So you accept that Paul hates slavery, at least in Philemon, but you attribute this rejection as a favour for a friend.
"I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains."
What does Paul mean when he refers to Onesimus as 'my son?'
Does he mean a friend, or does he mean a brother in Christ? I think he means the latter. Onesimus is not just a personal friend of Paul, but he is also a Christian brother, under the pastoral care of Paul.
By extension, Paul should be willing to file a claim for all the Christian brothers who are in chains to their masters, in asking for their freedom from captivity.
Now combine this with Paul's earlier statement. In order for a slave to be freed, he can stay as he is and not improve his lot, or he can become a Christian, and have people to fight for his freedom like Paul.
Paul has no power to demand the release of all the slaves, but he does have the power to help the Christians.
quote:
How was a slave to "get free" while being a good slave and doing your master's bidding? By being freed by the master only. |
And how else will the slave be freed? Cutting all the chains off the slave? Having Christians walk around and free the slaves? Paul would prefer to do this, but the constraints of the time bind him to this approach.
It does not prove that Paul condones slavery, Paul was trying to topple slavery from within.
If you take the slaves away from a slaveowner, he will simply get more. If you convince the slaveowner that slavery is wrong, then he will never own another slave, and release the ones he owns. Which is more effective? The first might charge out of the gate, but the second overtakes and eventually surpasses the first.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zylka
Define "acid head" for this skeptical poster. |
I've done daily doses for up to a week straight. Though usually it was a weekly thing. This went on for the period of at least couple of years.
quote:
So there's no such thing as a continual addiction that can be properly fed with acid - such is not the same with weed. |
Not physically, but there is a possibility of a psychological dependance. Minor yes, but still there.
quote:
Acid, in the sense of performance shaving multiplied by consistent addiction - can not affect your day to day life as severely as pot, and is mild in comparison. |
Have you actually tried it? I can assure you, if someone is high on acid, they're not going to be able to perform very well. Hallucinations can make it a little difficult to deal with reality!
And for someone with mental problems, it can be downright dangerous. That's the main problem as I see it with acid in fact, it can make people mentally unstable.
quote:
(Not aimed at you, you've definitely got a brain. I'm sure you'd draw more respect with increased abilities, though...) |
Well how about that! I've been smoking daily for the past five years and I can still think straight! I guess it must really be harming me! I admit that I have a tendency towards laziness, but so what? IMO, this world is being choked because of over-achievers, it doesn't need anymore to add to the mess.
quote:
Strychnine in mushrooms is a comical urban legend at best - Trust me, drop that assumption before you start waiving canes at people while screaming how the moon landing was faked  |
I did mention that I wasn't sure of that didn't I?.
quote:
I agree they're not very pleasant on the digestive system in large quantities, but what does that have to do with anything at all? Are they more harmful than pot because of that? Pot sure as hell doesn't make my chest and upper throat feel too wonderful, so what's the point? Are you assuming they're lethally poisonous because of this intestinal distaste? Look up the LD-50 of mushrooms if this is the case. Since you're eating a bunch of exotic stale dried fungus, gas could be expected. Eat a jar of hot peppers and tell me how you feel after that |
I'm not trying to argue with you that mushrooms are dangerous, I know they're not. In fact that was the only detrimental effect I could come up with. Aside from the fact that people with a mental disabilty might not be in very good shape after ingesting it. It's far less of a problem with mushrooms than with acid though, I have to admit.
quote:
I think I've just taken care of that notion - THERE ARE NO HARMLESS DRUGS. To further, even on seperation and combination scales - pot isn't the least dangerous. |
No there aren't. But I also don't see the rationale of spending billions of dollars a year world wide, and arresting hundreds of thousands of people because they smoke marijuana. Especially considering the futility of doing so.
Almost every month I read of some indoor grow operation getting busted. But for every one that gets caught, there's probably 10 that don't. I think if we add up all the various factors involved, then it would make sense to legalize it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
think I've just taken care of that notion - THERE ARE NO HARMLESS DRUGS. To further, even on seperation and combination scales - pot isn't the least dangerous. |
You could walk into the local GNC and find at least 10 or 20 that are more dangerous- all over-the-counter and with no age limit for purchase.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
I think the danger element of drugs is irrelevant. Everyone knows that drugs are dangerous to some degree - that's a no-brainer. Some are less dangerous than others, and it's less dangerous to drink a beer than to drink 10 shots. Duh.
The point that is relevant, though, is that personal drug use harms no one other than yourself, in the same way that drinking harms no one's liver but your own.
Now, if you get in a car and drive home drunk, or go rob a convenience store while you are high, that is wrong. However, those are arguments against drunk driving and robbery, not against alcohol and drug use. Roberry and drunk driving SHOULD be illegal, and driving while high, or flying a plane while high, etc., should be illegal as well.
But just as it's not illegal for me to go out drinking, or drink at home, neither should it be illegal for me to get high at home, or get high in some form of "drug bar", or walk down the street smoking a joint, as long as I'm not driving home. If I commit a crime in the process I should of course be punished, this is not even up for debate as near as I can tell.
Just separate the crime from the act.
Oh, and obiwan - God commanded some horrible atrocities in the OT, including genocide, and Paul did not take a public moral stand against slavery, which any moral person should do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
Azazel,
Well, I find it odd that an Israeli would make a sarcastic comment questioning the immorality of genocide.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
David, what about the emotional anguish the friends and family of drug users suffer? There's also the cost of funerals if a drug user ODs. Also, not everyone realizes drugs are bad, mmmkay? Some people either ignore or don't think about the consequences, and I know you don't agree with it, but the government should keep harmful substances out of the public. If the government via the FDA can ban and block research into drugs that are harmful, they have the right and obligation to keep harmful substances illegal. Drugs can harm in more than one way, they can harm your education, your physical ability, your body, and your emotional stability.
People make arguments using legal drugs (like alcohol) and asking how they feel about that but the onus is on the people that want to make a change, not the people who wish to keep the status quo.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
Obiwan - quote:
Berzerker,
clearly you have a problem with both Jesus and Paul, not just Paul. |
Why? I'm not the one trying to equate Paul with Jesus.
quote:
It is dishonest to reject Paul as not conforming with Christianity, when you don't accept Jesus. |
Assuming I don't accept Jesus (whatever that means), why is it dishonest to reject Paul as a spokesman for Jesus? Did Jesus condone slavery? If he did, then I reject his religion too.
quote:
It makes sense to me that God will not provide everything all at once, and rather progressively reveal himself to man. |
Does that mean God will condone or endorse acts of evil to keep partially hidden?
quote:
This is part of the point of the Mosaic Law, that you teach to the level at which people can understand. If you change their behavior for the better, have you not won part of the victory? |
So why did it take millennia to outlaw slavery? Do you know how many slaveowners justified their actions? By pointing to a curse God placed on the descendants of Ham! How is it moral to condemn your children for your actions?
quote:
You ignored my points about equality, that Paul taught the equality of all persons, which is anathema to slavery as an institution. |
You ignored what Paul told slaves and slaveowners.
quote:
Now we're getting somewhere! So you accept that Paul hates slavery, at least in Philemon, but you attribute this rejection as a favour for a friend. |
Did Paul call upon all slaveowners to free their slaves and abolish the institution of slavery? No, he asked someone he knew to free a friend from slavery.
quote:
"I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains."
What does Paul mean when he refers to Onesimus as 'my son?' |
You tell me.
quote:
Does he mean a friend, or does he mean a brother in Christ? I think he means the latter. |
"Son" is not a term of equality, but if he meant "brother", he could have called him brother and not son. It sounds like Paul is referring to his son - who became his son.
quote:
Onesimus is not just a personal friend of Paul, but he is also a Christian brother, under the pastoral care of Paul. |
Obiwan, you're not explaining why Paul did not call for an end to slavery, period.
quote:
By extension, Paul should be willing to file a claim for all the Christian brothers who are in chains to their masters, in asking for their freedom from captivity. |
He didn't, he just asked for a friend to be freed. And why only Christians? Why not all slaves?
quote:
Now combine this with Paul's earlier statement. In order for a slave to be freed, he can stay as he is and not improve his lot, or he can become a Christian, and have people to fight for his freedom like Paul. |
Paul didn't fight to free slaves, he asked that a friend be freed.
quote:
Paul has no power to demand the release of all the slaves, but he does have the power to help the Christians. |
He couldn't speak? He did speak, and he told slaves to be good slaves. If that's Christianity, no thanks. Religion is supposed to be about morality, not pragmatism.
quote:
And how else will the slave be freed? Cutting all the chains off the slave? |
Ever hear of the Underground Railroad? Spartacus? Were these slaves who rebelled or ran away behaving as good slaves in the eyes of their owners? But Paul would tell these slaves not to runaway or rebel, but to remain slaves and hope their owners free them.
quote:
Having Christians walk around and free the slaves? Paul would prefer to do this, but the constraints of the time bind him to this approach. |
You're aren't getting this, I don't reject Paul because he didn't die trying to free slaves, I reject him for condoning slavery.
quote:
It does not prove that Paul condones slavery, Paul was trying to topple slavery from within. |
Paul condoned slavery and he did it when he failed to condemn the institution when he advised slaves and their owners on how to behave.
quote:
If you take the slaves away from a slaveowner, he will simply get more. If you convince the slaveowner that slavery is wrong, then he will never own another slave, and release the ones he owns. |
Exactly! And how did Paul "convince" slaveowners to stop the practice? He told them to treat their slaves well and he told their slaves to be good in the eyes of their masters. Why didn't he tell the slaveowners that slavery was evil and that they needed to end the practice?
quote:
Granted, this is off-topic but Berzerker initiated the discussion, not me. |
I believe you quoted Paul and I responded.
MacTBone]David, what about the emotional anguish the friends and family of drug users suffer?[/quote]
Are you suggesting it should be illegal to cause others mental anguish? I used drugs when I was young and caused no emotional anguish to others. Why would I be held accountable for the actions of others?
quote:
There's also the cost of funerals if a drug user ODs. |
Many OD's result from the lack of quality control resulting from the illegality of drugs. That means those who ban the drugs share responsibility for this cost. But we all die, why are the funeral costs of some people relevant?
quote:
Also, not everyone realizes drugs are bad, mmmkay? |
Drugs aren't bad, it's what people do with them that may be good or bad.
quote:
Some people either ignore or don't think about the consequences, and I know you don't agree with it, but the government should keep harmful substances out of the public. |
Where did you find this power in the Constitution? Oh well, better ban every chemical under the kitchen sink.
quote:
If the government via the FDA can ban and block research into drugs that are harmful, they have the right and obligation to keep harmful substances illegal. |
Where in the Constitution did you find this "right"?
quote:
Drugs can harm in more than one way, they can harm your education, your physical ability, your body, and your emotional stability. |
So can a loaded gun, you want those banned too?
quote:
People make arguments using legal drugs (like alcohol) and asking how they feel about that but the onus is on the people that want to make a change, not the people who wish to keep the status quo. |
So if slavery was the status quo, those advocating slavery have no need to justify their position? Hmm...strange world in which one group of people don't have to justify their persecution of millions of people, but their victims have to convince them to stop the persecution. If government didn't exist, would you run around forcibly taking money from other people to cage millions more for using pot?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
Well, I find it odd that an Israeli would make a sarcastic comment questioning the immorality of genocide. |
By the way, I apologize for that....didn't mean it offensively, just as a smartass comment. Sorry if I offended.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
David, what about the emotional anguish the friends and family of drug users suffer? |
That's a family and personal problem, not a government problem. I might suffer emotional anguish if my dog died, but that's my own problem, not the government's.
quote:
There's also the cost of funerals if a drug user ODs. |
Yes, and his estate or family should have to pay for the funeral. If a funeral cannot be provided through those means or through charity, he should just be dumped in a mass grave. I shouldn't have to pay for his funeral, though.
quote:
Also, not everyone realizes drugs are bad, mmmkay? |
Not everyone knows it's bad to touch a hot stove, but we aren't gonna outlaw hot stoves.
quote:
Some people either ignore or don't think about the consequences, |
Some people are stupid. So what?
quote:
but the government should keep harmful substances out of the public. |
Great, let's outlaw sugar and salt now.
quote:
If the government via the FDA can ban and block research into drugs that are harmful, they have the right and obligation to keep harmful substances illegal. |
Then I demand that chocolate production and consumption be criminalized immediately. I don't like chocolate, and hey, it can be considered to be harmful. And if someone is trying to eat a chocolate bar while driving, they could get distracted and have a wreck. Ban chocolate NOW!
quote:
Drugs can harm in more than one way, they can harm your education, your physical ability, your body, and your emotional stability. |
But the key point here is that they harm YOU. And if you want to harm yourself, it's your own problem.
quote:
People make arguments using legal drugs (like alcohol) and asking how they feel about that but the onus is on the people that want to make a change, not the people who wish to keep the status quo. |
Actually, in a free and moral society, the onus is on those who wish to restrict freedom. Unless you want to argue that the US is not free or moral, in which case I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Why do laws concerning substances have to relate to potential death with their use? Rape sure doesn't kill anyone, should we make that legal as well?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-02-2003 13:10
|