That is not all the bible councils, you ought to carefully read what ever version of the bible you read.
To me the bible councils the belief system of bunch of what a bunch of old men thought when ever your version was written. Typically the bible also indicates that women are lesser then, subservient and mostly just barely more than “property” to men. (Mostly depending on what “version” of the bible you subscribe to.)
Sheldon: AW Fuck! Don’t you know slavery was different in those days. Slaves were only kept for 8 years. What about the year of Jubilee? Slave owners couldn’t really punish their slaves or pass slave on to their children, or beat them or trick their Jewish slaves into becoming lifetime slaves by giving them a wife? It was a pink, fluffy, sweet smelling, nice fluffy kind of slavery that didn’t involve invading nations around you to get slaves, selling daughters into slavery or anything cruel like that. After all. the bible says, “Do not steal,” and slavery is a kind of stealing a person’s life. (We know exactly what the Tard is going to say!!!)
Indeed. I don’t know if this still current,but for centuries Jewish men would thank God every morning for not making them a woman.
Each of the three Abrahamic faiths remain misogynist patriarchies as far as I can tell.
A favourite the bit in Exodus is when god notices Adam and Eve are aware of their nakedness. Of course Adam immediately tries to blame god by saying: Genesis 3:12 "Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”
Even the Catlics are smart enough not to try to insist the Book Of Exodus is meant to be taken literally. Of course they still insist on claiming Jesus was a real historical person, regardless that there is no credible evidence of his existence. In fact, recently I’ve begun leaning towards the mythicist position of Dr Richard Carrier et al.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"The morning blessings include one praising God “who has not made me a woman.
Few Jewish religious texts have provoked as much indignation and discomfort as the brief passage that is recited by traditional Jewish men at the beginning of the daily morning prayers: “Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman.” For many, it expresses a quintessential misogyny that lies at the core of our patriarchal religion."
Nothing. That’s only if you are not self destructive in your persuit for sensual pleasure. would you waste your life seeking hedonistic pleasure with a standard in mind or just with any individual who would give you gratification?
“Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence . To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.”-Ayn Rand
Welcome to AR
Waste? Who are you or I to judge the worth of the life of another person? What if I don’t accept your Judeo-christian morality ? In such a case,imo hedonism is perfectly rational way to live.
What If I think the meaning and purpose of life is itself? (IE the continuance of life) If that is the case, there can be no such thing as a wasted life by definition.
To have lived is all there is as far as I can tell so far. How one lives is ultimately irrelevant. The usefulness of a life is defined by others or even by oneself. There is no objective truth which can be assessed as far as I can see. Not about individual life or our lives as a species.
As it turns out, I do have a measurement for the value of my life, but not of anyone else’s, I will count my own life as worthwhile if the world is even slightly better for me having been here. The only problem with this notion is that I have no idea how I can measure it, without being arrogant or self punishing.
I’m 73 next month. I have no idea if I have made any positive difference for having been alive for less than the blink of an eye in cosmic terms. I hope so.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
"There are five strands of sense desire. What are these five? Forms cognizable by the eye that are wished for, desirable, agreeable and endearing, bound up with sensual desire and tempting to lust. Sounds cognizable by the ear… odors cognizable by the nose… flavors cognizable by the tongue… tangibles cognizable by the body, that are wished for, desirable, agreeable and endearing, bound up with sense desire, and tempting to lust. These are the five strands of sense desire. The pleasure and joy arising dependent on these five strands of sense desire, that is called sensual pleasure.
"Now, if someone were to say: ‘This is the highest pleasure and joy that can be experienced,’ I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is this pleasure? Here, quite secluded from sensual desires, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and abides in the first meditative absorption (jhana), which is accompanied by thought conception and discursive thinking and has in it joy and pleasure born of seclusion. This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that (sense) pleasure and is more sublime.
"If someone were to say: ‘This is the highest pleasure that can be experienced,’ I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is that pleasure? Here, with the stilling of thought conception and discursive thinking… a monk enters upon and abides in the second meditative absorption… in the sphere of the infinity of space… of the infinity of consciousness… of no-thingness… of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
"If someone were to say: ‘This is the highest pleasure that can be experienced,’ I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is this pleasure? Here, by completely surmounting the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, a monk enters upon and abides in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime.[3]
**> **
> "It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
**> **
> "Those who say so, should be told: ‘The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.’"That is what the Blessed One said. The venerable Ananda was satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words.[4]
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.nypo.html
A Buddhist following the eightfold path is a certain type of hedonist. He does not avoid the cold, mosquitoes, hunger, excessive heat, or the homeless life - and yet he seeks the highest pleasure - that which goes far beyond sensual pleasure.
Ratty, you have lost your mind. Eyes do not have cognition! Ears do not have cognition! Noses do not have cognition! Tongues do not have cognition.
So your pleasure is not real pleasure. *No true Scotsman Fallacy.
Seriously Ratty… you need to get a life.
This bullshit does not even qualify as a Deepity!
Rat Spit has been “granted” a 6 month “vacation” from the forums. Hopefully on his return he will have learned not to accuse other forum members of being sex offenders.
You are Wrong!
For first , you must Remember that No People knew God and Understood His Ways.
And these were a people who themselves, did not know the Lord.
Thus, The Laws in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are The Firsts of God’s Laws, Given and ISSUED To A PREVIOUSLY NORMAL EVIL PEOPLE, WHO DO AND DID WHAT EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD WAS DOING at that time, Neither Caring if what they did was Good or Not.
Therefore, These First Laws, Was Given To them, To Break Them from Their Former Normal Ways (As the rest of the world did), and Respecting the fact that Old Habits Die Hard, Thus, God Knew that a Complete And Opposing Change of Laws, would not be easy for them to obey.
Therefore in Wisdom, He Restricted The Acts of Which He knew that they are accustomed to doing, knowing that, after they are now accustomed to the restrictions, They would come to Know and Understood That He Does Not Even Like what they do (for at this time, they did not know Him and they did not really care to know Him), therefore, they themselves would on their own volition, set themselves to do Rightness or Righteousness, thereby Finishing the Work of the Lord.
That is why Those Laws Are the way they are.
But they were not given to command people to do wrong rather it was meant to slowly correct them from the wickedness that they are very much accustomed to doing!
Wrong! This is the interpretation of the matter.
“My ex wife” meaning she is single and free to mingle, without limitation. Lol
“having met someone else” ah she exercises her natural right to mingle, (No wrong here).
“is divorcing me” meaning you are still married in paper (and not yet an ex-wife) but seperate persons in fact and spirit (Which in my Personal opinion is the True and Complete Divorce).
“and will take every penny I have, as well as a chunk of my pension, and the law entitles her to do it”- And this is the distinction, “the law” made by your fellow men, which you both agreed that it shall have power over you and you further agreed to be bound to obey it.
Having Agreed to obey it, therefore, you can be compelled to obey it. That is your First Problem.
The Second problem is, the Greater Law, Nature’s Law, which Established Marriages, (for man’s law did not establish Marriages), Powerfuly Ties both parties, making you jointly owning, using and sharing everything which may have previously and properly belonged to one of you.
Therefore it is immaterial and becomes immaterial who owns what and who bought what, all is jointly owned.
Therefore, following a Splitting, that which is Co-owned, must be Split also.
So therefore this is not a case that falls within the meaning of Another Person’s Property, for by virtue of marriage, you are simply exchanging to each other Your Own own Property, Not Another Person’s Property
The capitalization of words it something we do to give a clue to our meaning. To help communicate our ideas to other. However: random capitalization does the opposite. It makes your message MUCH harder to receive. Seriously, if you were to remove the shift key from your computer, it would result in a massive improvement to your writing, making your message much easier to understand.
It is not a fallacy because I was laying Up A True Fact which is Seen not for the purposes of giving validity but to direct that all men are Automatically Disqualified from commenting on the validity of these matters.
Therefore, everyone is entitled to their own preference.
It is common for man to call and identify his Greaters, who he perceives to be much much Greater and Powerfuler than him and his fellow men “deities”!
Thus, seeing that the world is greater than us and neither did we Build it or Own it, consequently, following reports of A Certain Person Claiming Undisputed Ownership of the world, good reason dictates that such a Person Must Himself Be Greater than The world which we are in and He therefore Has Great Authority Over us, who are in His world.
And this where you Greatly Fall, Lol for No One is Challenging that the man did not Build or Create the Phone, therefore No Dispute as to Ownership.
The man creator can not hear the phone complain (if it at all complains) therefore, No Dispute between the Creator and his Phone.
The man creator is challenged and can be challenged Either by his Fellow man creator or Another Person Greater than Him and his fellow man creator, Not and Never by the Phone which the man created.
And that is my case you have just established for me, No Man Is Qualified to Challenge or Question The Validity of He Whom we call God, just as the Phone can not challenge its ownership in the hands of man
To match the pink fluffy reasoning skills that produced it no doubt. 
Firstly welcome to AR.
I’m not sure a lack of self esteem is something I’d criticise to be honest, as it’s hardly a choice someone deliberately sets out to make for themselves.
I’ve met people who seemed to be bursting with confidence in my life, and often after closer acquaintance I came to see how superficial they were, and how little reason they had for it.
Self esteem is important, but there are times in your life when it will be difficult to maintain. We’re evolved apes after all, and our expectations are often unrealistic IMHO. Religions are the worst kind of ideologies for imposing unrealistic expectations on their adherents, then judging them way to harshly when inevitably those expectations are not met.
If you’ve ever made someone laugh, caused a moments happiness or pleasure, made someone feel wanted, needed, or necessary, even for a while, then who can say it’s a wasted life.
Like most people I’ve made some bad mistakes in my life, and paid the price, but they don’t define me, as unlike the rationale that religions use to make binary judgments as if people are either good or bad, I know I have been, and am capable of both. I try to be a decent person, and when I fall short I try to learn from it, and that’s all I can do.
No I’m not, read the bible.
Yet you claim to know that about the deity you believe in, hilarious that you don’t seem to see the ironic contradiction.
What has that straw man attempt to troll a response got to do with your erroneous claim, or my refutation?
It is a fallacy, I suggest you look it up and reread your original claim.
That one is called a straw man fallacy. Again I urge you to look it up and try to understand what it means.
I’ll repeat this as your unintelligible disjointed rant doesn’t address my question at all. Go back and read what you said, then explain how you think it evidences any deity.
Your posts suggest you’re either barking mad or trolling, I can’t decide yet, but there is no objective evidence that anything in nature is designed, and your phone analogy is asinine nonsense.
I’ve challenged it ffs, you just can’t or won’t recognise the rationale used.