The Demon & the Slave Block

Jackals Home – [shared link] 

Jackals Home – So, lots of people are gonna shit on this guy for adopting, then abandoning kids, (possibly handing them over to a child molester), and yeah, you should. But here's the thing:

He believed the children were possessed by demons. Crazy, right?

Except literally every major religion teaches its adherents that demons are real, dangerous, evil, unholy creatures that can harm people. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, Mormonism, Shamanism, all adhere to these beliefs. It is ingrained in all of them. 

If you are a member of any of these religions, you would I have to think be prepared that some day you would be confronted by demonic forces. Isn't that part of belief?  That you believe these things are true, and possible, and you live your life as steadfastly opposed to these demons, you need to ask yourself why you don't have the strength of character that the Harris' do. 

Why haven't you fought any demons, lately? Why are you sitting down on the job? DEMONS ARE EVERYWHERE, IN EVERY BELIEF SYSTEM

You read your holy books, and you cheer your sky-person from the sidelines, but when it comes to getting out and actively defying demonic influence, you all seem to look around and shrug. "What? I haven't seen any demons!" ARE YOU LOOKING? DEMONS ARE REAL ACCORDING TO YOUR TEXTS! THEY PLAGUE HUMANITY! WHY AREN'T YOU STOPPING THEM?

M. Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: "'What? I haven't seen any demons!' ARE YOU LOOKING?"

hahahahaha

M. Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “If you are a member of any of these religions, you would I have to think be prepared that some day you would be confronted by demonic forces. Isn't that part of belief?”

1.)    We’re always confronted by demonic forces.  Unseen spirits (djinn) are always trying to tip us over into bad behavior by whispering suggestions that entice us to do things we have a natural weakness for. 

2.)    “Whispering suggestions that tempt us” is the extent of the power that God allows these beings to have.  That includes the satan itself.

3.)    This info is in the Qur’an, which is the final revelation in the canon of sacred scripture, the close of the Message from God to mankind.  Like the previous revelations He sent down before it, it confirms and fulfills the previous messages, as well as sets to right those areas that previous guardians of the book allowed people to stray in the message. 

4.)    Any talk claiming that the unseen spirits did anything to people outside of the “whispering suggestions that tempt us” boundaries that were established when Adam was the only human, are fictions.

So this is not only my personal belief about “demonic forces,” but it is how THE holy book of the youngest of the Abrahamic Religions describes it.  I’m not inclined to have a generous “everyone’s idea of this is equally valid!” by virtue of how revealed scripture from the One God of Abraham functions.  I’m not going to be going out to slay any demons, nor will I ever think that people who claim to do so are sane.

Jackals Home - My point is that, when you subscribe to a magical thinking, "mysterious ways," outlook on life, in which miracles are possible, and everything can't be defined by what can literally be defined, then where do people then get off acting like this guy is some kind of mental case?

"Oh, I believe in angels, and other planes of reality, and souls, and thetans and divine inspiration and virgin birth, but that guy, that guy over there is crazy.

Why?  Why is that guy crazy? When your belief system incorporates 50 thousand unquantifiable beliefs, how on earth can you criticize someone for their unquantifiable beliefs?

Jackals Home - I mean, to me, the big jump is that you believe in demons, evil spirits--something for which there is no evidence. That's the big agreement. Once you agree on 90% of the contention (Evil spirits vex humanity, a benevolent spirit or spirits guide humanity via a impenetrable bronze-age text filled with rules for behavior, contradictions and loopholes), I'm not sure why I should care about distinctions that move the needle a percentage point or two.

"Oh, no, this is the new Malibu Stacy--she has a hat."

M. Rasheed - It’s not your thing, so you shouldn’t care.  That’s not the problem.  The problem is that your original post reflected a position about those belief systems that you don’t care about, that weren’t true in order for you to make your point.   That’s the part that I addressed from my own belief system’s standpoint, a belief system that functions under very specific rules and logic.  I understand that for you it is all one, it's all under the same magical nonsense umbrella, and perhaps even the suggestion that it really does function under its own rules and adhere to a logic system is laughable.   That’s fine.  Again, it’s not your thing anyway.  My job is to explain how the belief system actually does function and why that guy is batshit crazy according to the belief system itself.  In politics, people often believe things that are at odds with what the documented laws and policies actually reflect, and when you point these things out to them, they get mad and double down on popular partisan talking points rhetoric.  It is no different in this sphere.   This guy is wrong, and it does matter what the texts say compared to what he chooses to believe.

People have grown fond of believing a lot of different sub-doctrines, and when you push their nose into the scripture that reveals what they believe is at odds with the actual commandments or instruction, they will get defensive.  People don’t like being admonished by ideological rivals, especially those they consider Johnny-Come-Lately upstarts.  Muhammad dealt with that when confronted by Christians, Jesus dealt with it when confronted by the doctors of the Law.  Naturally the followers of those two messengers will continue to deal with it from the followers of those two camps.  

In the Qur’an, God said, “Do not break your religion up into sects.”  Of course, the people couldn’t WAIT to break their religion up into sects… presumably because God told them NOT to do it.   Before the prophet’s body was even cold suddenly we had sunni versus shia scratching boundary lines in the Arabian sands.    The shia will argue you down that Ali ibn Abu Talib should’ve taken over the early Muslim community after the prophet passed away, but when you ask them why in the hell is that relevant to any fucking thing, they will freak out and say you are not a real Muslim or whatever.  Take them back to the sacred scripture, pointing out what God Himself considered MOST important and they will more than likely declare a holy war and curse your family for your audacity.

The rules and logic of the system reflect XYZ, but people believe ABC because that’s just how people are.  The scriptures have always said that the unseen spirits have very limited power, and only whisper suggestions to us, to tip us over into our personal temptations.  No one has to physically go out and battle anything.  The idea that I DO have to because someone else doesn’t follow the sacred texts but prefers to make up his own ideas of what these spirits can and cannot do, is unreasonable.  Especially when the suggestion comes from someone who doesn’t believe nor care about any of this, and admits that the difference between “whispering suggestions” versus possessing kids and killing whole families in demonic glee are no different than moving the needle a percentage point or two as far as he is concerned.  

Jackals Home - Well, I mean, if a demon whispered a bunch of weird stuff into those little girls heads and made them act out, isn't that kinda the same result? On the prime material plane, as it were?

Like, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes, if the result is that some little girls are full of destructive rage. Couldn't demons have caused it?

M. Rasheed - But that's the thing: the 'demons' don't make anyone act out.  It's the equivalent of you quitting smoking (you really should quit anyway by the way. don't you have asthma...?), and I say, "Come on just have one.  What's it going to hurt?"  That what the spirits do.  They never interfere with your Free Will to make any choice, they just play upon your temptations to try to tip you over.  No one makes you do anything.  The idea that I killed my kids because "demons" is crazy.

Jackals Home - Like the demons could say "These aren't your real parents--you don't need to mind them. You can do what you like. If they try and punish you, act out even worse, destroy their belongings, scream, give them no peace."

It's not a Linda Blair possession, right?  But the end result still mimics reactive attachment disorder. How can we tell, sans evidence, that the behavior is caused by one or the other, if one option has no basis by which we can test it?

Why is it that "demonic influence" isn't considered a viable possibility?

M. Rasheed - Because we CAN'T tell.  We do have natural fleshy weaknesses that we are tempted by anyway, that the spirits just poke at.  Either way it's something we have to overcome and negotiate through life.  Our temptations are just stuff we deal with anyway, and whether an outside agency is helping to make that itch worse than it would be otherwise still comes down to the same thing:  "Control Yourself." 

Jackals Home - I mean, little kids are pretty easy to influence, and if the adoptive parents ever tried to placate them with ice cream or toys or whatever, the demons might have enough ammo to keep working them: "See how easy it is? You can make them do whatever you want!"

Jackals Home - So The kids might have been beset by demons, and the guy just wanted those demons far away from his non-demonic-acting family.  What's the problem with that?

M. Rasheed - lol What?

Jackals Home - Okay, you have adopted kids in your house, like the guy in the article. 

And they are acting destructive and violent and disruptive. And you look in your bronze-age book, and come up with a theory: "Demons!"

The exact means of influence isn't important, the important thing is that the kids are a disruptive, violent influence in your household, and that disruptive behavior is caused by demons.

You don't want demons in your house. Who would? If I believed in demons, I wouldn't want them in my house.

So you pass the kids off to someone else, in order to protect yourself from exposure to that demonic influence.

What's the problem, with that, spiritually speaking?  Why is it wrong?

M. Rasheed - Well, it's wrong because it ignored the fact that the demons aren't causing anything, and the creatures aren't "in the house."  No one is free from that influence.  Children are cured of their disruptive behaviors by use of structure and discipline.  Saying you want to get rid of them because they give over to temptations too readily is bad parenting.

Jackals Home - So the difference between bad behavior and demon influenced bad behavior is so slight as to be completely undetectable.  That's...pretty convenient. Why it's almost like personality traits are just the result of learned behavior and biological imperatives. That can't be right, can it?

"Demons influence people, including children, but there's no way of knowing if demons are the cause of bad behavior or not and if you can't exorcise their supernatural influence over your adopted children, using the exact same life-skills and medical knowledge that non-believing-in-demons people would use, it's your fault, for not being a better parent."

So if you

(1) Can't tell what's normal bad and what's demon-bad, and

(B) You use the same parental skills that non-believers do to address the problem (structure, discipline), then

...at what point is the bronze-age stuff about demons relevant? It's like knowing that unicorn tears cure cancer. So what? What good is that information?

M. Rasheed - Personally, I think it is notable that the only people making a big deal about it at all are the crazies and the disbelievers.  What seems “convenient” to you in the analysis of what constitutes “normal” from “bronze age spirit stuff” to me is just the way the world functions.  There is no difference.  I told you that the texts say that these spirits have very limited influence based on restrictions placed upon them, and our Free Will is not compromised.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that the world functions “normally” in how we move about in it according to the belief system itself.  By contrast, the crazy people INSIST that the spirits have way more influence than what the texts say, and the disbelievers INSIST that the crazies are right and the whole system should be thrown out.  

  

Jackals Home - Okay, but you didn't really address my question.

If you can't tell when the demons are causing your bad behavior, and addressing bad behavior uses no methods unknown to people unaware of demons, then what good is having the knowledge of demons?  Where do you apply it?

M. Rasheed - That's easy.  You apply it by recognizing that these temptations, that can be difficult to deal with under the best situations, can feel EXTRA difficult during low moments, you create procedures and systems, and attend social help groups, to help you overcome them.  Build up your discipline to aid you in overcoming your natural weaknesses.

You aren't required to do anything about the spirit world.  While you are on earth, that isn't your lane.  Your only requirement is to believe in it.  That's it. 

Jackals Home - So, you're saying that the spiritual stuff has literally no practical purpose. Everything you describe in that first paragraph can be used by completely secular people, in a completely secular world. 

M. Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “So, you're saying that the spiritual stuff has literally no practical purpose.”

I’m saying that because the spirits do have a certain amount of influence in our lives, the practical application of that knowledge is to strengthen our personal discipline so we are better able to overcome our temptations during low moments when their whisperings can be most influential.

Jackals Home wrote: “Everything you describe in that first paragraph can be used by completely secular people, in a completely secular world.”

The “secular world” is God’s world.  Everything in this universe functions according to the way God made it.  It will still work for you on the material level if you choose not to believe in the afterlife, God and the spirit.

Jackals Home - "Everything in this universe functions according to the way God made it."

How does the Koran describe stuff like the motion of planets, origin of the stars, tidal motion, stuff like that?

   

M. Rasheed - Usually in metaphorical poetic language.  

Jackals Home - Right. So when it's stuff that's directly scientifically disprovable, like geocentrism, then god talks in metaphor. How do we know the demons aren't metaphorical, too?

Jackals Home - Is it because it's harder to disprove that invisible spirits are to blame for human frailties than it was to prove that the sun doesn't hide under a chair until god tells it to rise again?

M. Rasheed – Jackals Home wrote: “So when it's stuff that's directly scientifically disprovable, like geocentrism, then god talks in metaphor.”

lol It’s in metaphor because He said it in metaphor.  

Jackals Home wrote: “How do we know the demons aren't metaphorical, too?”

Because He point blank said “This is that” without all the flowery metaphor speak.

Jackals Home wrote: “Is it because it's harder to disprove that invisible spirits are to blame…”

I wouldn’t know since I’ve never blamed them for anything.  I actually believe what God said about the matter.  You’ll have to direct something like that towards the guy in your article.  

Jackals Home wrote: “…than it was to prove that the sun doesn't hide under a chair until god tells it to rise again?”

The Arabs were really big into poetry and metaphor and stuff in those days.  As far as I know they still are.  They kicked it up and made poetry a REALLY big thing in that culture when the Qur’an came and the Arabic language reached a high art status.  For all of their faults, they couldn’t say they didn’t know the difference between metaphor and straight talk.  I can confidently say that of the average person, I think.  It takes a special type of person to be all “Oh shit!  He was a DEMON!  I had to shoot him!” and other such crazy talk.

M. Rasheed - hahaha I went somewhere else with that last line.

M. Rasheed - It takes a special type of person to be all “Oh shit!  The DEMONS are coming!  Get the holy water!!  RUN!!!” and other such crazy talk.

M. Rasheed - Copy/paste that over that Darren Wilson part, please.

Jackals Home - How do you know that god describing the sun being placed under a throne is metaphor, again? "Because" is your answer?

Because you know that the sun does no such thing, and you'd feel foolish trying to defend it, even though you said that the universe functions as god created it. If it's factually disprovable, it's metaphor, if it's beyond all tangible examination, then it's truth.

God of the gaps all up in here, tonight.

Jackals Home - Oh, the Derren Defense is a whole different issue.

M. Rasheed - James Olchak wrote: “How do you know that god describing the sun being placed under a throne is metaphor, again? ‘Because’ is your answer?”

Because I know the difference between metaphor and straight talk?  Are you arguing that I don’t?  Is this intended as a slight against me?  How did we get here? Please explain.

M. Rasheed - (in my efforts to find examples to compare and contrast, I'm actually finding it more difficult than I thought it would be in capturing metaphorical descriptions of the heavenly bodies movements.  I may have to revise that "usually in metaphorical poetic language" comment)

M. Rasheed - Qur'an - Chapter 21, verse 33: "It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all the celestial bodies swim along, each in its rounded course."

"Swim along" is metaphor.  Things don't "swim" in the sky.  Perhaps if I was inclined to think that the sky was full of water because of the rain...?  Is that something that people think?  Maybe kids.

M. Rasheed - Qur'an - Chapter 7, verse 54: "Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne of authority: He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, all governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!"

"Throne" is metaphor.  He established that He is truly unique and that there is nothing like unto Him.  He's not Morgan Freeman with wish powers. 

Describing the transition between day and night as drawing a veil is a pretty metaphor, likewise the imagery of the one "chasing" the other. 

M. Rasheed - Qur'an - Chapter 6, verse 96: "He it is that cleaveth the day-break from the dark: He makes the night for rest and tranquillity, and the sun and moon for the reckoning of time: Such is the judgment and ordering of Him, the Exalted in Power, the Omniscient."

Here He's using "cleaving them apart" poetic descriptors, instead of the 'drawing a veil over,' and the 'chasing each other like playful puppies' descriptors.  All metaphors.  Am I to understand that I'm to reasonably consider them ambivalent as to whether they should be considered "real" or not?  Even as a child I was never under that impression. 

M. Rasheed - James Olchak wrote: “Oh, the Derren Defense is a whole different issue.”

I know, that’s why I cracked myself up when I went there.

M. Rasheed - Qur'an - Chapter 2, verse 208: "O ye who believe! Enter into Islam whole-heartedly; and follow not the footsteps of the evil one; for he is to you an avowed enemy."

The "footsteps" part is metaphor.  These creatures stay beyond the fabric separating the dimensions and do not have physical bodies.  The "evil one" part is not metaphor.  This is a real creature, and God is telling us point blank not to obey it.

Jason Miller - How do you know the difference between GOD'S straight-talk and metaphor? Especially when it's within the same sentence? And how do you reconcile that position of authority with the next believer? Is there some sort of Q&A session where God says things like, "Nah, that line was really metaphor, trolololol" or is it all just based on a bunch of assumption?

Jason Miller - Why would a being like God waste time waffling between metaphor and straight talk anyway? Thy throw some confusing interpretive shit into the middle of a sentence that hsould otherwise be taken literally? Especially within the same sentence? Like, "Oh, I'm going to dumb this one down for those mortals and make a throne analogy BUT THIS NEXT CLAUSE OF THE SENTENCE MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND VERBATIM BECAUSE WORD OF GOD" unless God were deliberately trolling us?

M. Rasheed - Because my quotes were just cherry picked out of the greater text to point out the metaphors.  The rest of the text is full of Him explaining how unique He is, that we are to only believe in spirit but He will not share those secrets with us until we are done with this life, etc.  That’s how I know the difference.

Also I fail to see how I would be considered a troll in this context since I’m only providing the missing information to put the primary contention of this thread in context of the actual belief system.  How is that trolling?  Do you resent me providing that info, and want to make fun of the religions from your high horse of misinformed disbelief?

Jason Miller - For example:

And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with stars/lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.

What? Stars are missiles shot at demons?

It is He Who made the Earth a couch for you, and the sky a dome.

Dome? WTF?

Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind and (other) things of which they have no knowledge.

Parthinogenesis? Cell division? Pollination?

He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels);

Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, 

One Day We shall remove the mountains, and thou wilt see the earth as a level stretch, and We shall gather them, all together, nor shall We leave out any one of them.

Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water). Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not.

Flat unchanging Earth? What?

And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves

So mountains prevent earthquakes?

M. Rasheed - Jason wrote: “What? Stars are missiles shot at demons?”

God said that some spirits would try and eavesdrop and spy and would be driven away with bright bursts of flame.  He provided no other information, creating more questions than answers in fact, and this is a tantalizing glimpse into the unseen.  Since we know that not all of the bright “lamps” we see in the sky are the same objects, and certainly we casually tend to refer to them all as ‘stars” generically, all we can do is speculate of the mysteries presented.  For such items we are only asked to believe.

Jason wrote: “Dome? WTF?”

Honestly your “wtf?” over this causes me more confusion than the ‘dome’ descriptor.  Why the ‘wtf?’  if He just said the earth is metaphorically a couch, why would describing the sky as a dome be a ‘wtf?’ moment?  Are you attempting to create artificial confusion to force home a point?  What is a dome?  

dome - noun 

1.  Architecture. 

a vault, having a circular plan and usually in the form of a portion of a sphere, so constructed as to exert an equal thrust in all directions. 

a domical roof or ceiling. 

a polygonal vault, ceiling, or roof. 

2.  any covering thought to resemble the hemispherical vault of a building or room: 

the great dome of the sky.

3. anything shaped like a hemisphere or inverted bowl. 

To ME that was a perfectly reasonable metaphor, that doesn’t seem quite as over-the-top as your reaction.

Jason wrote: “Parthenogenesis? Cell division? Pollination?”

In that verse you quoted, it comes from Surah 36, which starts off with God confiming that Muhammad is indeed His messenger, and He goes on to describe some instances in which disbelievers of old had also mocked their messengers sent to them.  After this, His tells the prophet that “Here is a sign for them” directly referring to the ignorant Arabs, of which parthenogenesis, cell division, and pollination would go into the “and (other) things of which they have no knowledge” category.

Jason wrote: “Flat unchanging Earth? What?”

It looks flat from your human eye level.  Why would He describe the view from the Space Shuttle to the desert Arabs when he’s talking about how it will look to them when we are all gathered for Judgment?

Jason wrote: “So mountains prevent earthquakes?”

That’s a good question.  Do they?  Are there more earthquakes in areas where there are no mountains?  That’s worth investigating. 

Jason Miller - That's already been investigated; it's pretty easy to find plenty of information which directly links earthquakes (caused by the friction of tectonic plates) with mountains (formations which exist along the edges of tectonic plates).

The reason I brought up all of these confusing metaphors is because: If those are God's words, why would he be so deliberately misleading? If he's using those types of metaphors because of the absence of human knowledge, why is he not simply straight-talking and enlightening people? Does he WANT people to be ignorant? Which is actually a nice segue into another question of mine:

Jason Miller - If what you're saying is true, why would anyone want to spend their whole lives on their knees it the feet of an entity that, say, creates bone cancer in children? Why create a parasite that spends its entire life living in your blood in such great numbers that eventually, upon the parasites' death, the carcasses cause your vasculature to clog with their mass, restricting blood flow, causing excruciating, untreatable inflammation and pain? Or a worm that eats its way through your eyes from the inside out, making you blind. What logical sense does it make to create a world with that in it? God could just as easily have left that out but no.Why allow so much suffering? Where is the logical sense? There is none. And this guy who created all these things, who created a world deliberately designed to torment its inhabitants, who allows so much suffering to go on, is trying to warn me to watch out for that other guy, the guy who didn't create all those things? The guy who really doesn't do a whole lot besides suggest to me that a beer and a blowjob sound like a really good time?

And what about angels as well as demons? God apparently created them without any souls. That means they have no free will, according to many faiths. Meaning that they are simply obeying the will of God. They have no choice in their actions? Why does God command them to do these things? Where is the logic? Again, there is none. That's why it's faith. The essence of the farce is the fallacy of conflating logic with faith.

And why would a God who created such a cosmos be so concerned with the attention of a few mortals? It's narcissism, pure and simple.

The only logical conclusion that one can come up with is that if there is a God, then he's an absolute monster, a maniac, a complete psychopath. And that he is not deserving, nor does he apparently require, any respect or adulation whatsoever.

M. Rasheed - Jason Miller wrote: “That's already been investigated…”

I meant by me.  It is an interesting verse.

Jason Miller wrote: “The reason I brought up all of these confusing metaphors…”

They were never confusing to me.  

Jason Miller wrote: “…is because: If those are God's words, why would he be so deliberately misleading?”

Nothing about these verses is misleading.   

Jason Miller wrote: “If he's using those types of metaphors because of the absence of human knowledge, why is he not simply straight-talking and enlightening people?”

Do good, reject evil, and believe in the One God that made you.  That is the message of God to mankind.  It is straight talk.  The detailed minutia of the natural phenomena of the material universe is for you to figure out if you are curious.  Will that recorded information detailing our scientific discoveries outlive the earth?  Our species?  The universe?  That knowledge, or the lack thereof, will not get you into heaven, nor prevent you from going.  It’s just extra busy work we fill our time with, and in the great scheme of things, doesn't mean anything at all.  Making sure your eternal soul is set up nicely in the life hereafter is the only real thing that actually matters.

Jason Miller wrote: “Does he WANT people to be ignorant?”

Well, us discussing and bringing up the earthquake/mountain thing made me want to know more about it.  (hint hint)

M. Rasheed - Jason Miller wrote: “If what you're saying is true, why would anyone want to spend their whole lives on their knees it the feet of an entity that, say, creates bone cancer in children? Why create a parasite that spends its entire life living in your blood in such great numbers that eventually, upon the parasites' death, the carcasses cause your vasculature to clog with their mass, restricting blood flow, causing excruciating, untreatable inflammation and pain? Or a worm that eats its way through your eyes from the inside out, making you blind. What logical sense does it make to create a world with that in it? God could just as easily have left that out but no.Why allow so much suffering? Where is the logical sense? There is none.”

Whoa!  Before you get to “there is none” let me take a crack at it based on the message of scripture.  The logical sense is tied into ‘what are we here for?’  We are here to worship the One God that made us, and be rewarded for that worship.  We have the Free Will to accept Him at His word and obey Him, or reject Him as we so please.  Those that believe will win, those that reject Him will fail.  Children don’t get to play this game as they have not reached the age of discretion.  When they die they go directly to paradise to exist in eternal bliss with no memory of the suffering they experienced during their short time on earth.  For the rest of us their suffering and deaths are one of the many tests we experience, tests to our faith.  If we allow that earthly material suffering of us and our loved ones to cause us to lose heart and fall into a despair that causes us to reject the One God, then we fail.  Humans experience both prosperity and adversity to test us, so says the One God of us all.  I want to win, therefore I will continue to enthusiastically spend the rest of my life on my knees, bowing down to the Supreme Creator of reality that gave me life, who promised that if I but believe in Him and obey His commands, I will indeed receive my reward.  I will have no need to fear, nor shall I grieve. 

So says the Lord of the worlds. 

M. Rasheed - Jason Miller wrote: “And this guy who created all these things, who created a world deliberately designed to torment its inhabitants, who allows so much suffering to go on, is trying to warn me to watch out for that other guy, the guy who didn't create all those things? The guy who really doesn't do a whole lot besides suggest to me that a beer and a blowjob sound like a really good time?”

This creature promised to drag you down into the realm of torment with it and its fellows on the Last Day by feeding into your temptations that there is no God.  That’s what makes it an avowed enemy to you; it wants you to lose the Great Game.  

Jason Miller wrote: “And what about angels as well as demons? God apparently created them without any souls. That means they have no free will, according to many faiths. Meaning that they are simply obeying the will of God. They have no choice in their actions? Why does God command them to do these things? Where is the logic? Again, there is none. That's why it's faith. The essence of the farce is the fallacy of conflating logic with faith.”

I’m not sure what you are really asking here.  You have a problem with the angel spirits not getting to play the Free Will game?  God said they have their own role to play in the scheme of things, that they flinch not from doing precisely what He commands and He commands them much.  There are some hints in the book of what they do for Him, but that knowledge is in full a part of the unseen and none of our business right now.

Jason Miller wrote: “And why would a God who created such a cosmos be so concerned with the attention of a few mortals? It's narcissism, pure and simple.”

It is not my place to question the motives of the omniscient, omnipotent being that conceptualized and created mathematics from scratch.  The amount of arrogance needed to fix my mouth to express such an attitude is above my pay grade.  lol

Jason Miller wrote: “The only logical conclusion that one can come up with is that if there is a God, then he's an absolute monster, a maniac, a complete psychopath. And that he is not deserving, nor does he apparently require, any respect or adulation whatsoever.”

And for my part I will accept that God knows while I know not, and He is deserving of worship by virtue of Him being God by definition, and I can never know what He knows on any possible level.  To try and confine His majesty into the necessarily narrow and foolish box a mere mortal such as myself can only design is doomed to failure.  Recognizing this and simply believing in Him is a brick in the road towards wisdom.

Jackals Home - I don't think anything you're saying is helping illustrate the god of the gaps more than the discussion regarding metaphor, so I'm gonna double back to it.

It remains my contention that the reason there are so many faulty and flat wrong descriptions of celestial objects , natural elements, and the behavior of same is because the Koran, like all books, was written by mortal men who viewed the world through an exceptionally small-angle lens, predicated on the geographic limitations of their time. So lets focus on this one:

"It looks flat from your human eye level.  Why would He describe the view from the Space Shuttle to the desert Arabs when He’s talking about how it will look to them when we are all gathered for Judgment?"

Here are some reasons, I, a mortal man, can think of to not devise a rulebook for all human behavior this way. 

(1) Because as a supremely unique being with foresight beyond all comprehension I would know that such a book would eventually progress beyond the desert in which it made its debut, and people who live in mountains will clearly know that the earth is neither flat nor unchanging. Contradiction found in natural world? Metaphor lol can't you see?

(2) As a supremely unique being with unimaginable intellect, I would also know that eventually humans would develop the instrumentalities to surpass the problems and solutions faced by bronze-age farmers and nomads. Crafting an eternal holy book to have an expiration date is the sort of thing you do if you intend to create a sequel: "Koran 2: This one has all the rules about ethical genetic engineering, A.I.s, space travel, and economic inequality!"

(3) Why would a supreme being use metaphorto reinforce the mundane? That's the exact opposite of how metaphor works.  You don't need metaphor to describe flat dirt to guys who live in flat dirt. Why would the supreme being write a passage basically telling these guys that their entire world is flat dirt, rather than trying to help them understand the true vastness and unfettered beauty of the earth? Why?

God exists in the gaps of what has not been scientifically explained, and his influence is so small at this point that his only influence is over the intangible bogeymen from fairy stories--things that cannot be seen, cannot be touched, and will never be disproven, because the factual universe exists to prove things, not disprove them.

M. Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “(1) Because as a supremely unique being with foresight beyond all comprehension I would know that such a book would eventually progress beyond the desert in which it made its debut, and people who live in mountains will clearly know that the earth is neither flat nor unchanging. Contradiction found in natural world? Metaphor lol can't you see?”

The Arabs were the people chosen to spread the message.  As such it was necessary that they take ownership of it, and it couldn’t be too alien for them.  The Qur’an is very definitely filtering the universal message to mankind through a very specific culture and what they understand.  It expands in the ways that are most important, but it certainly met them where they were.  This was important because they took ownership of it, understood it, and successfully spread the message abroad.  So successful in fact that it helped create the myth of Islam being spread by the sword.

Jackals Home wrote: “(2) As a supremely unique being with unimaginable intellect, I would also know that eventually humans would develop the instrumentalities to surpass the problems and solutions faced by bronze-age farmers and nomads. Crafting an eternal holy book to have an expiration date is the sort of thing you do if you intend to create a sequel: ‘Koran 2: This one has all the rules about ethical genetic engineering, A.I.s, space travel, and economic inequality!’"

This doesn’t compute, and represents outsiders trying to project into scripture that which is not in its lane.  It’s unchanging human behavior that determines my rewards and punishments, none of that other stuff named.  People behave in certain ways in certain situations, and the message of God lays down the law as to which behaviors will win me the game, and which will cause me to fail it.  The homo sapien is the same as he has always been since his debut, and the scripture won’t expire.   

Jackals Home wrote: “(3) Why would a supreme being use metaphorto reinforce the mundane? That's the exact opposite of how metaphor works.  You don't need metaphor to describe flat dirt to guys who live in flat dirt. Why would the supreme being write a passage basically telling these guys that their entire world is flat dirt, rather than trying to help them understand the true vastness and unfettered beauty of the earth? Why?”

That wasn’t a metaphor.  That was God describing what the earth will look like on the Last Day as all of mankind will be resurrected and gathered for Judgment.  It’s real.

Jackals Home - So the Koran doesn't address the ethical concerns about things that didn't exist when it debuted, because "that's not in it's lane," not because the goatherds who wrote it had no idea that such things would ever exist. Instead, the ethical guidelines are more "big picture" related, providing solid, consistent, immutable ethical guidance that will never become obsolete because god created them, is that it?

What did god have to say about slavery?

M. Rasheed - God said that 'freeing the slave' is one of the top Good Deeds a believer can do, and Good Deeds are what will win you the Ultimate Reward.

Jackals Home - You're not leaving anything out? About God's word on slavery?

M. Rasheed - More?

He also said that for those who hold slaves, they must provide for them no different than they provide for themselves.  Same food, clothing, etc.  In the prophet's example, upon attaining his prophethood status, he promptly freed his only slave and adopted him as his son.

M. Rasheed - That 'freeing the slave' as a good deed was all I would need, personally.  Uthman, the 3rd Caliph of Islam, of the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs in the prophet's inner circle, would go into the city and free slaves every Friday.

Jackals Home - "All you would need" implies you have quite a bit of say in the matter. Commonly, people like me refer to that practice as "cherry picking."

You mentioned earlier that Islam has developed an undeserved reputation as being spread by the sword. Were there any rules regarding the taking of slaves in times of war, and spiritually how slaves held by Muslims differed from non-slaves from non-Muslim cultures?

M. Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “’All you would need’ implies you have quite a bit of say in the matter. Commonly, people like me refer to that practice as ‘cherry picking.’"

“All I would need” to be satisfied that slavery isn’t encouraged in Islam.  The entire religion revolves around stacking up Good Deeds. That says a lot to me.   

Jackals Home wrote: “You mentioned earlier that Islam has developed an undeserved reputation as being spread by the sword.”

Yes.  The prophet dictated letters (many of them still in existence in museums and such) to heads of state during his time, proclaiming that he was the prophet of God, and inviting them to the faith.  He told them they had a responsibility to make sure the truth got to their people, and he was sending a small delegation of scholars to instruct the people and would appreciate government support.  He received four types of responses: 1) They ignored him  2) Curious, they wanted to know more and bid them come on 3) They politely declined but sent gifts  4) They decided to be insulted for whatever reason and considered it a declaration of war.  

The fourth response required that the Muslims defend themselves, and with the ultra-charged enthusiasm of the newly converted, they proved to the attacking nations to be pretty much invincible.  The new faith itself proved very attractive to the people of the time, and became “The Next Big Thing,” and fashionable.  Heads of state started converting, and would have their entire nations join onto the new Islamic Empire as it gained momentum.  From the outside this looked like a hostile force sweeping through the land, reminding them of the Golden Horde of Genghis, but this wasn’t so.  Later on certain Islamic heads of state would get greedy for land and conquering, but they didn’t represent the norm, but only fed the myth.

Jackals Home wrote: “Were there any rules regarding the taking of slaves in times of war…”

None that stand out to me, though I know that slaves were considered part of the battle treasure captured during war during the prophet’s day.  

Jackals Home wrote: “…and spiritually how slaves held by Muslims differed from non-slaves from non-Muslim cultures?”

You mean how Muslim slaves held by Muslim owners differed from free nonbelievers?  God said that the righteous believer is superior in His eyes over those who reject faith, and it doesn’t matter what the difference is in their social stations.  To God, a believing slave is superior over a disbelieving king.

Jackals Home - "None that stand out to me,"

Lotta Christians ignore/marginalize stuff in their holy book, too.”

"To God, a believing slave is superior over a disbelieving king."

So taking slaves and converting them is anethical imperative in Islam. It's better and more righteous to be a slave under Islamic rule than to be free with other beliefs.

Not only does Islam allow the taking of slaves, but it encourages it, as spiritually beneficial to the slave. This is grotesquely incompatible with 21st-Century ethics.

No reasonable, good, empathetic person would defend trafficking of slaves, but not only is it not forbidden by god, it's described as having good points.

M. Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “’None that stand out to me,’  Lotta Christians ignore/marginalize stuff in their holy book, too.”

lol  Well, I did do a search through my online Qur’an link and nothing came up about that specifically that I could find.  Nothing triggered my memory outside of how the prophet dealt with it.   I don’t think about it too deeply since ‘freeing a slave’ is a highly-potent Good Deed in Islam and says everything about slavery that’s most important. 

Jackals Home wrote: “’To God, a believing slave is superior over a disbelieving king.’  So taking slaves and converting them is anethical imperative in Islam.”

“And converting them” is a strawman.  There is no compulsion in Islam.  People allowed their slaves to worship whatever they worship, especially the People of the Book. 

Jackals Home wrote: “It's better and more righteous to be a slave under Islamic rule than to be free with other beliefs.”

No.  It’s better to be a righteous believer who is a slave, than it is to be a pagan or an atheist who is free.  The former will win paradise despite his earthly slave status, while the latter will win only hell.  In a strictly materialistic standpoint, it will be better – quality of life wise – to be “free with other beliefs” than a slave to anyone.  But God won’t be judging us from a materialistic standpoint.

Jackals Home wrote: “Not only does Islam allow the taking of slaves…”

I can’t specifically verify the rules of that.  It seems like if you were captured in war and you were already a slave, that you will be brought into the new community still under that station until that should change for whatever reason.  I don’t see anything in the Qur’an about it though, so that’s just my guess based on how the early community under the prophet worked.

Jackals Home wrote: “…but it encourages it…”

‘Freeing a slave” is one of the top Good Deeds you can do in a belief system that is all about stacking up Good Deeds to win the Ultimate Reward.  I’m trying to imagine how that can possibly be interpreted as “encouraging slavery” from any possible angle.  

Jackals Home wrote: “…as spiritually beneficial to the slave.”

Taking a free person and forcing them into slavery.  I haven’t found anything to support that in the Qur’an.  

Jackals Home wrote: “This is grotesquely incompatible with 21st-Century ethics.”

It’s grotesquely incompatible with a rational discussion, too, since you’re just making it up and subscribing it to the faith without any certain knowledge.  Why?

Jackals Home wrote: “No reasonable, good, empathetic person would defend trafficking of slaves, but not only is it not forbidden by god, it's described as having good points.”

“Trafficking of slaves […] it’s described as having good points.”  Honestly, you’re going to have to explain how you came to that conclusion.  God said that a believer is superior to a nonbeliever, and it doesn’t matter if the believer is a lowly slave with no power versus a nonbelieving king of an empire.  Somehow you’re interpreting that as meaning Islam encourages trafficking in slaves.  That’s 100% a leap that I cannot possibly make with you.

Please walk me through your thought process that led you there.  

Jackals Home - Well, as long as you have blind spots up, regarding how a religion can encourage the freeing of slaves without acknowledging the taking of slaves, I'm not sure how I would go about that.

 Does it say, anywhere in the Koran, that the taking or keeping of slaves is forbidden? Does it provide rules for how to treat slaves, ethically? These things cannot happen in a culture that does not accept slavery. C'mon. 

"Hey, if you're just wandering the streets, being ethically pure and holy, and some slaves fall into your pocket, freeing them might be a good deed." -god

If free people are going to be denied a reward, but being enslaved by masters who willbeneficently and completely without any coercion (other than the fact they aren't permitted to leave, because they're fucking slaves) instruct them in the ways of true salvation, then that's providing an ethical imperative for taking slaves.

"Since those slaves fell into your pocket, you might as well teach them my word, otherwise they'll be doomed to hell" -god 

If teaching a slave your religion is a "good thing," and it can only be accomplished if you have a slave to teach, then anyone can connect the dots there that Islam has good things to say about slavery.

"There is no compulsion in Islam."

There is compulsion in slavery. I'm certain that you believe all ancient Muslims stuck to that whole "they can be any religion they like" caveat (after all, you're constantly telling me how well modern Muslims follow these rules), but if the Muslim slaves got an extra serving of hummus, or whipped a little less, or any other sort of human behavioral modification tactic, then I'm willing to go out on a limb and say most slaves that fell accidentally into the pockets of Muslim owners ended up Muslim.

Slavery has one ethical imperative: "Slavery is wrong." If your religion butters that up, or equivocates in any way around it, than it cannot be fairly described as providing adequate ethical guidance for people in the 21st century.

M. Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “Well, as long as you have blind spots up, regarding how a religion can encourage the freeing of slaves without acknowledging the taking of slaves, I'm not sure how I would go about that.”

I would first suggest taking back the “blind spots” comment, since that doesn’t reflect what I was saying at all.  I said I couldn’t find specific mentions of the rules for slave taking in the Qur’an itself, and could only go by the prophet’s example.  Obviously there’s slavery in the Muslim World.  I’m asking how did you manage to interpret “a believer who is a slave is superior in God’s eyes to a nonbeliever who is free” into “Islam is all about stealing free people and forcing them into slavery.”   You’re a bright guy.  I’m sure you can break down your own thought processes so that someone else can follow your threads.  

Jackals Home wrote: “Does it say, anywhere in the Koran, that the taking or keeping of slaves is forbidden?”

I can’t find anything regarding the taking of slaves one way or another.  Slavery is tolerated in Islam, so no, it never says it is forbidden.    

Jackals Home wrote: “Does it provide rules for how to treat slaves, ethically?”

It does instruct as to how they are to be treated.

Jackals Home wrote: “These things cannot happen in a culture that does not accept slavery. C'mon.”

Another strawman.   Are you trying to say that you don’t see a difference between “doesn’t encourage” versus “doesn’t accept?”  Islam clearly accepts slavery, but it doesn’t encourage it.

Jackals Home wrote: “If free people are going to be denied a reward…”

Are they being denied a reward because they are free?  That’s what it sounds like you are trying to say.  These free people will be denied the reward if they reject the One God that made them, just as any slave who rejects Him will also be denied that reward.

Jackals Home wrote: “…but being enslaved by masters who willbeneficently and completely without any coercion (other than the fact they aren't permitted to leave, because they're fucking slaves) instruct them in the ways of true salvation, then that's providing an ethical imperative for taking slaves.  ‘Since those slaves fell into your pocket, you might as well teach them my word, otherwise they'll be doomed to hell’ -god ”

What about the ones who were already Muslim?   

Jackals Home wrote: “If teaching a slave your religion is a ‘good thing,’ and it can only be accomplished if you have a slave to teach, then anyone can connect the dots there that Islam has good things to say about slavery.”

Funny how you want to connect dots about how good it is to teach religion, but continue to come up short on connecting dots that point out ‘freeing a slave is a great good deed’ but ‘teaching a slave the religion’ wasn’t in that list.  Yet you’re trying to insist on how the dots you’re connecting mean so much in my religion while dismissing contemptuously the ones that are actually specifically mentioned by God as important for my salvation.  Please explain your thoughts on how you are arriving there, too, please.   How the dots you want to connect that support your point are somehow more important than the dots connecting actual foundational truths of the belief system itself.  How does that work?

Jackals Home wrote: “’There is no compulsion in Islam.’  There is compulsion in slavery.”

There is.  As my slave, I can make you do laborious tasks, yet I cannot make you believe if you are inclined otherwise.  The actual quote is “There is no compulsion in religion.”  The Marranos were the Jews under Catholic-ruled Spain who secretly continued to practice Judaism after the government forced a nationwide conversion to Christianity.  Their secretly practicing Islamic counterparts were the Moriscos.  You can’t make someone believe.  Faith has to be from genuine intention in the individual heart.  

Jackals Home wrote: “I'm certain that you believe all ancient Muslims stuck to that whole ‘they can be any religion they like’ caveat (after all, you're constantly telling me how well modern Muslims follow these rules)…”

There’s a reason I was searching for the specific rules in the Qur’an itself, and reference the prophet’s, and his inner circle companion’s actions.  What did God specifically command, and what were the actions performed by those who were MOST serious about following those commands in their rightly-guided state?  Naturally people are inclined to stray off the path and do what they want to do, so I like to go to the source to see what we are supposed to do exactly.  I’m naively under the impression that the reasons behind why I do so are obvious.

Jackals Home wrote: “…but if the Muslim slaves got an extra serving of hummus, or whipped a little less, or any other sort of human behavioral modification tactic, then I'm willing to go out on a limb and say most slaves that fell accidentally into the pockets of Muslim owners ended up Muslim.”

I’m sure a lot of folk do stuff to people that’s wrong.  That’s how people have always been, and they will continue to be like that until the last human being dies.   God commanded a lot of things, and people like to do what they want.  Is this supposed to be the bottom line of your point?

Jackals Home wrote: “Slavery has one ethical imperative: ‘Slavery is wrong.’ If your religion butters that up, or equivocates in any way around it, than it cannot be fairly described as providing adequate ethical guidance for people in the 21st century.”

“Slavery is wrong” is the ethical imperative devised for the subject after many centuries of arguments & debates flinging it against our new nation’s own stench of hypocrisies.  Is “slavery is wrong” a universal ethical imperative?  Obviously not.  Has it EVER been?  Obviously not.  When our current high achievements of modern society eventually fail and crumble into dust, returning the human world to third, fourth, fifth world status and even straight-up anarchy, will full-blown slavery make its triumphant return?  It will be a certainty.  At that time, whatever the quasi-mythical people of the distant 21st century used for ethical guidance will be moot.  But those who decide to follow the guidance of Allah in His word will prosper; in the only way that prospering truly matters.

"Slavery is an undesirable station in life" is the closest thing to an imperative the concept possesses.  

Jackals Home - “'Slavery is wrong' is the ethical imperative devised for the subject after centuries of arguments & debates"

Precisely my point. If your holy book doesn't come up with this one, then its ethical guidance isn't immutable. Slavery is fucking wrong. treating your slaves nice isn't something you get a cookie for--the correct answer is: "slavery is wrong, don't enslave people."

Human society has outpaced god's ethics on this one.

Society isn't a station in life, slavery is a crimecommitted by people who are unethical. If their high holy book didn't teach them not to commit that crime (one of humanity's greatest, and furthest reaching crimes), then that high holy book is rubbish.On one of the biggest ethical questions mankind has faced, god fucking zeroed the test.

People didn't take slaves in defiance of god's law, they took them with his full consent, going so far as to how to properly treat the people you enslaved. If god doesn't want you to eat bacon, he doesn't include a recipe for a BLT in his holy book.

You don't get to use "Oh, people aren't doing the right thing, the thing that god said" on this one. God said it was okay to take slaves. Eating pork, he forbade, enslaving humans: "well, don't treat them so bad."

"Is 'slavery is wrong' a universal ethical imperative?"

Yes, unequivocally. Every country in the world has outlawed slavery. Secular countries, religious countries, atheist countries. There are still slaves, but it's not because the governments of the world aren't universally punishing those who commit that crime.

"Murder is wrong" is an ethical imperative, too, that doesn't mean nobody murders.  It meanseveryone who is not insane recognizes that it is wrong, and expects murderers to be punished.

M. Rasheed - Jackals Home wrote: “Precisely my point.”

Your point is wrong.  Americans coming to that decision precisely because of their guilt of treating people as chattels along race lines in the so-called “land of the free” is why they came up with that stance against slavery.  It doesn’t mean they were suddenly more enlightened than everyone else.  It meant they decided they had to make up for a few centuries of fuckin’ up, worse than anyone else had fucked up.

Jackals Home wrote: “If your holy book doesn't come up with this one, then its ethical guidance isn't immutable. Slavery is fucking wrong. treating your slaves nice isn't something you get a cookie for--the correct answer is: ‘slavery is wrong, don't enslave people.’"

“Come up with this one” is laughable.  It was the western world that was treating people one way while proclaiming something else.  Everyone else wasn’t being so wishy-washy and hypocritical on that stance.

Jackals Home wrote: “Human society has outpaced god's ethics on this one.”

One particular guilt-ridden society decided to make up for their four centuries of wrongs by abolishing slavery, while simultaneously upholding the slave holder race above the descendants of the enslaved race, continuing even now in the institutionalized discrepancy, and you somehow think that this society outpaces God’s proclamation that only the most righteous among us is superior to the next person?

Jackals Home wrote: “Society isn't a station in life…”

Of course not. That doesn’t even make sense.

Jackals Home wrote: “…slavery is a crimecommitted by people who are unethical.”

Slavery is a crime in a society in which the practice has been made illegal.

Jackals Home wrote: “If their high holy book didn't teach them not to commit that crime (one of humanity's greatest, and furthest reaching crimes), then that high holy book is rubbish.On one of the biggest ethical questions mankind has faced, god fucking zeroed the test.”

Some guy just proclaimed that a concept is the most blah-blah-blah ever, while the One who made that guy tolerates it as not really that serious, as long as certain conditions are met.

Jackals Home wrote: “People didn't take slaves in defiance of god's law, they took them with his full consent, going so far as to how to properly treat the people you enslaved. If god doesn't want you to eat bacon, he doesn't include a recipe for a BLT in his holy book.”

It doesn’t matter.   He obviously allowed slavery, but didn’t encourage it.  Prefers that we don’t practice it, but should we choose to do it, here’s how it needs to look in order for us to be alright from a righteousness standpoint.  

Jackals Home wrote: “You don't get to use ‘Oh, people aren't doing the right thing, the thing that god said’ on this one.”

Sure I do.  Didn’t you notice me do it up yonder?

Jackals Home wrote: “God said it was okay to take slaves.”

Based on what?

Jackals Home wrote: “Eating pork, he forbade, enslaving humans: ‘well, don't treat them so bad.’"

shrug  You probably won’t risk getting hypertension from living in the household of a kind and properly God-fearing slave master.

Jackals Home wrote: “’Is 'slavery is wrong' a universal ethical imperative?’ Yes, unequivocally.”

Then why are people still doing it as they always have throughout recorded history?

Jackals Home wrote: “Every country in the world has outlawed slavery.  Secular countries, religious countries, atheist countries. There are still slaves, but it's not because the governments of the world aren't universally punishing those who commit that crime.”

The world’s countries have outlawed it because of pressure from the powerful western governments, and some of their cultural influences, but it is still quite in practice.   Why?  Because “slavery is wrong” is not a universal ethical imperative, it’s just the latest trendy thing in the international world.   Wishy-washy legalities that come and go as the tides.  Like how this marijuana thing is flip-flopping in the courts.

Jackals Home wrote: “’Murder is wrong’ is an ethical imperative, too, that doesn't mean nobody murders.  It meanseveryone who is not insane recognizes that it is wrong, and expects murderers to be punished.”

You’re not going to ask me if God forbid murder in the Qur’an by contrast?   Well, He did.  He very definitively said not to do it, that it is a great wrong.  Treating slaves poorly is a great wrong.  Not allowing them to purchase their freedom if they ask is a great wrong.  Being a slave?  It’s a shitty station in life.  If you should find yourself in that state, it stands to reason that you SHOULD ask to purchase your freedom, and work hard to attain it.  The effort will be accredited to your record as a good deed.  FYI

Jackals Home – And I'm done. If your contention is that the conclusion that slavery is ethically wrong is western society being "trendy," then there is no cherry I can place on that sick a sentiment.

M. Rasheed – There’s a very specific reason why the western world treats slavery the way it does.  You want me to believe it’s because humans have grown ethically better and better over the ages and have finally wakened to a peak progressive enlightenment because it is time for them to in the humanist superstition of “becoming,” derivative of the old Masonic concept.  If this were true, would the same old mindset still be among us, shooting my children dead in the streets while blaming me for it?  They delegated an entire race of people to chattel slavery and got obscenely rich off of it, establishing themselves as a white race elite at my expense, all the while pretending they were better than everyone else.  At a certain point the national conscience reached its boiling point over the fundamental hypocrisy involved, MUCH blood was shed, and America decided it was tired of having that particular argument, but that it wasn’t tired of treating those same people like shit.  Then they went around the world shaking this anti-slavery, fake self-righteous finger at everybody else because of the centuries of special kind of fucking up THEY had done, and continued to do under a new name (while pretending they weren’t) and you want to preach to me about how western society has “outpaced God.” 

And then you want to tell ME what’s “sick.”  Curious.

See Also:

A Religious Discussion - Atheist & Muslim

Choosing Faith: Separating Wheat from Chaff