[peaceboy23]

So recently I've been feeling like there is no point in life. Like, what? You go to school, get a job, get married, have a kid, then leading up to what? Death? I've been thinking about that a lot recently. Any tips for helping get off this focus? That's a major issue in my dp and depression right now, that everything is just so pointless...there is no meaning in life. I think it may help when I get back to school.

 

[Guest]

Well, yeah. It doesn't have a "point". There is no "point", except your own enjoyment of it. So try to enjoy it.

 

[Milan]

If everything is so pointless, isn't ruminating and worrying about it just as pointless? Really?

Actually the point of it all is to feel good - isn't that what we are all yearning for? What motivates us all? I don't endure this sh*t so that I can feel it for another day; I'm hanging in there until the good times come!!

Look deep inside yourself, do you really, truly, whole heartedly believe that it's all pointless? Because if you did you wouldn't be asking for help on how to get rid of the dreadful feelings you are having. I bet you that there are many things that mean a hell of a lot to you and your happiness, I believe, is one of them.

There's plenty to live for.....trust me

 

[Sojourner]

These thoughts are typical of anxiety, peaceboy; while the subject you raise is one of great interest to many people, and you can find a tremendous amount of material (particularly at a good library), the intrusion of these questions into your thoughts when you are not intending to direct them to the study of the questions is a symptom of anxiety.

When you get that under control, these thoughts will be part of the exhilaration of life itself and not troubling to you.

Life itself will reveal the answers to these questions if you follow your heart.

 

[Sojourner]

Milan,

We're twins.

 

[peaceboy23]

Thanks for the responses. I think I've figured one thing out since I just wrote that. I am alone in my apartment for the week, my roommate is gone, and I feel more dp than when she is here. First, I think, is just the fact that if I go insane or somehting, someone will be here to help me. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I feel that alone I am not enough. I feel (and this is part of my codependency issue) that I should be doing something for someone, that it's not ok to just relax and have fun. I need to be out there saving the world (one of my friends once told me that I have a Jesus complex...I want to save eveyrone from themselves. This is a MAJOR indicator of codependency and child of alocholism issues.) I have a hard time accepting that it's ok to just live in myself and not constantly be doing something for someone else, or thinking about someone's problems, or things like that. Then, when things don't go well, I blame myself. When I am alone, as I am now, there is no one to distract me from myself.

 

[Monkeydust]

When you're thinking about the point in life, you don't very often find a great deal. Sure, you can chase happiness, develop yourself, forge friendships, relationships, raise children, be content and a whole host of other seemingly "good" things. But what does it all matter when you're dead, which you inevitably will be anyway sooner or later?

Such thinking can, hardly surprisingly, often lead you to apathy and despondency, and you're never going to find an answer to those questions that will satisfy you - simply because there is no answer.

Yet you'll find that enjoyment in life comes without any "point", any specific cause for life that is subject to reason and logic. Do what satisfies you, go after whatever goals you might have, embrace the absurdity, walk the path you want to, and go where you want to go. The "reason" for doing whatever this might be in your case is probably never going to be clear to you. But it's perfectly possible to find happiness without that reason anyway.

 

[Milan]

Monkey dust, your mind well exceeds your chronological age. At 18 all I use to worry about was being in a rock band, getting drunk, looking for a girl friend and basically worrying about satisfying my ego.

One of our good family friends was killed in a car accident and he left behind two teenage children and a wife. He was only 42. His death really upset me and I started thinking about life, death and what's the point of it all. I told a good mate of mine about my feelings and he said something that I didn't want to hear (I'll like to add at this point that he is super intelligent and a hard core atheist). He spoke about the universe and our place in it and how totally insignificant and pointless our lives are. Were just a by product of a bunch of chemicals that came together to form consciousness for no reason at all. Basically everything is totally meaningless. Not what I wanted to hear. In fact it made me more depressed. But he said one more thing that really stuck and made sense which was that it matters not that life is pointless because you can still be happy and enjoy each moment of your existence. Of all the people I know he is probably the happiest.

As monkeydust implied don't bother trying to find a point, a total waste of time especially with our disorder - just live, exist and enjoy. There is plenty out there to be happy about you just need to direct your attention towards it if you can.

 

[Sojourner]

When you're thinking about the point in life, you don't very often find a great deal. Sure, you can chase happiness, develop yourself, forge friendships, relationships, raise children, be content and a whole host of other seemingly "good" things. But what does it all matter when you're dead, which you inevitably will be anyway sooner or later?

That's the question wiser people than you and I have asked since Day 1. And amazingly, not all the answers are as ridiculous as they may seem to some who have been brainwashed against the notion that the universe strongly implies that there is intelligence behind and in all that exists, from the smallest particle to the largest structures mankind has become aware of.

Such thinking can, hardly surprisingly, often lead you to apathy and despondency, and you're never going to find an answer to those questions that will satisfy you - simply because there is no answer.

When you can prove that you have the intelligence, the knowledge, and the ability to speak definitively on the subject, I will believe that there is no answer. Until then, there are greater authorities than you that have spoken since the dawn of time who make more sense. No offense meant, of course, but the hard, cold truth. You've barely been around for 20 years or so and you are telling people what is?? Who do you think you are? Martin? :lol:

Yet you'll find that enjoyment in life comes without any "point", any specific cause for life that is subject to reason and logic. Do what satisfies you, go after whatever goals you might have, embrace the absurdity, walk the path you want to, and go where you want to go. The "reason" for doing whatever this might be in your case is probably never going to be clear to you. But it's perfectly possible to find happiness without that reason anyway.

Tell me, Monkeydust, my friend, what do you think about the concept of morality? The idea of right and wrong actions. Do you think that the term morality has any meaning? If so, what? And then, if so, where did you get your ideas from? Do you really believe them, or were you just taught things and accepted them? Or do you agree with them in your will? If so, why? On what basis do you believe the concept of morality is correct?

Thanks.

 

[Beth]

Tell me, Monkeydust, my friend, what do you think about the concept of morality? The idea of right and wrong actions. Do you think that the term morality has any meaning? If so, what? And then, if so, where did you get your ideas from? Do you really believe them, or were you just taught things and accepted them? Or do you agree with them in your will? If so, why? On what basis do you believe the concept of morality is correct?

You might find Mill an interesting starting point there Sojourner, and many other greater wiser splendider people have written about it too.

While we're being philosophical here - "...if they [Thoughts] are taken upon Trust from others, 'tis no great Matter what they are, they not following Truth, but some meaner Consideration: and 'tis not worth while to be concerned, what he says or things, who says or thinks only as he is directed by another"

You can take that on trust, from Locke's great mind.

some who have been brainwashed

Until then, there are greater authorities than you that have spoken since the dawn of time who make more sense.

Fact: in considering someone's thoughts the first thing to consider is their age.

It's probably a facade anyway. He's probably created a persona to seduce you and lure you somewhere dangerous, maybe even all of us. REAL 18 year old boys can't spell so consistently.

I am so lost as to when I'm being facetious and when I'm sincere. I think it's sort of a colour fade effect. I think you need to start off taking me seriously, then each full stop marks a slide down into babbling incoherence.

 

[Sojourner]

Hi, Beth,

Yes, it's a huge area to tackle unmethodically on a forum, and that was really not my intent -- examining specific thinkers who could be summoned to support either position. Nor do I want to collapse in a sea of relativism, but in view of our audience, to stay as much in the here-and-now as one can when discussing these things.

I was really interested in his answer to the question -- and anybody else's perspective on the issue.

That there seems to be a moral law that all agree on -- whatever their stance on any other existential question -- has always been fascinating to me.

The point of view of those who do not believe in a First Cause of the universe is not foreign to me. I spent many years believing that way. It was as much a "faith" as the Catholicism I converted to, and it is the "faith" held by those who do not believe in God. And I fault no one for holding it, because I am thoroughly aware of why it is held. There's nothing "shallow" or "evil" or "immoral" or "intellectually inferior" about it. It simply is a view of reality that is expressed based on the evidence that is perceived by the believer. I was one once! I know it's the most logical position to hold. There's no question about that. Given the purely empirical evidence, agnosticism makes solid intellectual and moral sense.

There's a "but" coming, as of course you know...

This fact that I've just explained is why it's so difficult for me to talk about my faith -- I cannot speak as the person who "knows" from on high the truth of the universe (that is to say, someone who was "brainwashed" from infancy to believe in God). That person can come here and speak and leave, without feeling he or she has left anything out. I always feel I have messed up really badly because I can never really nail down adequately why, in fact, I came TO believe.

The answer is -- and somehow reading your post triggered my thoughts -- that I found out that I did NOT have all the evidence before, and that valid evidence exists in many places -- valid enough to have convinced far greater minds than mine that God exists. Part of that evidence is personal encounter with the numinous.

Anyway, I have failed again, I am sure, but I just wanted to get across the fact that I understand the agnostic and atheistic points of view and I do not ridicule them or dismiss them as foolish. Unfortunately, some people in their virulent agnostic fundamentalism cannot civilly discuss these things with persons who disagree with them. That is sad to me. But I do enjoy your sense of humor and appreciate your civility.

Your post really did make me smile as I visualized you distintegrating in a heap of incoherence in the corner -- just what we need here for the mental well-being of every poor DPer who comes here for solace and support. :lol:

 

[Monkeydust]

That's the question wiser people than you and I have asked since Day 1. And amazingly, not all the answers are as ridiculous as they may seem to some who have been brainwashed against the notion that the universe strongly implies that there is intelligence behind and in all that exists, from the smallest particle to the largest structures mankind has become aware of.

Charming... :roll:

If we don't believe what you say we've been brainwashed... :lol:

Care to elaborate as to how the universe implies intelligent design?

When you can prove that you have the intelligence, the knowledge, and the ability to speak definitively on the subject, I will believe that there is no answer. Until then, there are greater authorities than you that have spoken since the dawn of time who make more sense. No offense meant, of course, but the hard, cold truth. You've barely been around for 20 years or so and you are telling people what is?? Who do you think you are? Martin?

I'm not stating what is, but simply what's isn't. Until I find a convincing answer to the meaning of life, I'm going to maintain that there is no answer to be found - or that if there is, we can't find it. The burden of proof rests squarely on you.

I couldn't care less about your "great authorities". I prefer to judge on what's said, not on who says it, and to take the argument by it's merit, not by its author's prestige.

And no, I haven't even managed 20 years on this earth yet. Sorry, my life-accelarating juice hasn't quite worked well enough to enable me to be older. My fault.

Tell me, Monkeydust, my friend, what do you think about the concept of morality? The idea of right and wrong actions. Do you think that the term morality has any meaning? If so, what? And then, if so, where did you get your ideas from? Do you really believe them, or were you just taught things and accepted them? Or do you agree with them in your will? If so, why? On what basis do you believe the concept of morality is correct?

That's a lot of questions!

So...morality.

First of all, I suppose I should state what I don't think. I don't think there's any overarching morality derived from God or based upon metaphysical principles, especially not the Christian code, the veracity of which I find generally unconvincing - not to mention that I find much of Christian morality repulsive anyway. I don't think there's any absolute categories to which we can say "x is wrong in all circumstances" or "y is right and must be done by all in all circumstances". No, that's not what I think.

So what are we left with? To begin with, I couldn't give a rat's arse about private morality and I don't think anyone else should be allowed to either. A person's sexuality, sexual practice, personal beliefs, interests, habits, hobbies, mannerisms and so on are their business, and they can do what they like without me or anyone else justifiably calling them immoral - even if we find what they do distasteful.

In the public sphere matters become a little more problematic. But I think we are nevertheless able to construct a loose form of morality, grounded of course in human affairs and the "real world". What this code will be will depend upon the structure and form of the polity involved: for different people with different beliefs in different places and at different times it may, understandably enough, be different.

Whilst I don't claim to have "worked it all out" yet, I think we can at least establish a few starting principles which point in the right direction. I tend to veer towards the utilitarian ethic, to decide the "goodness" or "badness" of public actions on the amount of happiness they produce for the greatest number. So, for example, someone who goes around robbing old grannies of their possessions is "wrong" insofar as they are harming that person, making them personally unhappy and making a great many more unhappy out of the ensuing fear for individual safety.

It's hard to conceive of people sitting there judging individual actions on how much "happiness" and "unhappiness" they produce, but I think that a general morality can be established on the basis of what generally brings about such things about - the consequence being that murder, rape, theft and so on are deemed "wrong". In the final resort, I think people will have to always keep an eye on present reality, and be willing to make exceptions in terms of practicality and the "common good" as and when these arise.

Again, I stress that I by no means have "all the answers", but I think any practically minded ethical code based upon reason and human concerns is preferable to the Christian absolute moral paradigm.

It's probably a facade anyway. He's probably created a persona to seduce you and lure you somewhere dangerous, maybe even all of us. REAL 18 year old boys can't spell so consistently.

Yes. I am, in actual fact, a 95 year-old man, smoking my pipe and drinking copious quantities of scotch as I while away my senility in my country estate.

 

[Sojourner]

Charming... :roll:
If we don't believe what you say we've been brainwashed... :lol:

That's not what I said and it's also not what I mean. :lol:

I was referring to the knee-jerk antagonism that usually surfaces in discussions like this by people who are so virulently against religious belief that they can only sneer and be nasty. A person who has not been brainwashed has no need to adopt such an attitude toward an opponent or adversary, and generally *doesn't* adopt that attitude. The sneering, the insulting, the ridiculing all bespeak a brainwashed mind. That's my opinion. Thoughtful people respect the views of others, even when they profoundly disagree.

You may not have been brainwashed, personally, but when you sneer, that's what goes through my mind -- that you are not willing to talk to me properly, in such a way that we can continue speaking and perhaps even learn from one another.

As I said elsewhere, I completely understand your point of view. From my perspective, you simply have not encountered evidence that you consider valid for the existence of God. To sneer at mine is to end further sharing, though. Not that I cannot be condescending myself, of course, but I do regret it afterward if I forget that however much I may disagree with someone, it is inappropriate to ridicule him or her. I apologize if I have done that to you.

Care to elaborate as to how the universe implies intelligent design?

I cannot treat the matter adequately here, but there are many current writers of some repute on the subject, including Michael Behe, who have recently written books and articles on the subject. I hope you can appreciate how it is that I am not able to produce a perfect summary for you.

I'm not stating what is, but simply what's isn't.

But you do not have the knowledge to make such a statement. How can you say there are no apples on the table unless you know what is on the table? To think that you challenge MY logic while making such a statement boggles the mind.

Until I find a convincing answer to the meaning of life, I'm going to maintain that there is no answer to be found - or that if there is, we can't find it. The burden of proof rests squarely on you.

I am not here to prove anything, and I never said I was, so please do not twist my words. That's called "dishonesty." So you are going to claim you are a master of logic and say that because YOU cannot determine something, that NECESSARILY means that particular something does not exist?

I am entirely supportive of your end position -- not believing anything until you find a reason, but to say that something does not exist is to say that you know what DOES exist. And you don't, do you? Do you know whether there is a "soul" or not? No, you don't. But do you really have the audacity to declare that no such thing exists? Come ON, pumpkin!! :shock:

I couldn't care less about your "great authorities". I prefer to judge on what's said, not on who says it, and to take the argument by it's merit, not by its author's prestige.

When I make a statement like that it is intended to motivate you to read the original sources, not to take my word for anything. If I neglected to say that, it is my error.

And no, I haven't even managed 20 years on this earth yet. Sorry, my life-accelarating juice hasn't quite worked well enough to enable me to be older. My fault.

And because there is no "age 21" for you that you know about, such a thing does not exist and you will die in the next year, right?

First of all, I suppose I should state what I don't think. I don't think there's any overarching morality derived from God or based upon metaphysical principles, especially not the Christian code, the veracity of which I find generally unconvincing - not to mention that I find much of Christian morality repulsive anyway. I don't think there's any absolute categories to which we can say "x is wrong in all circumstances" or "y is right and must be done by all in all circumstances". No, that's not what I think.

"Love your neighbor as you love yourself" is repulsive? I cannot believe you think that. What specifically do you find repulsive?

So what are we left with? To begin with, I couldn't give a rat's arse about private morality and I don't think anyone else should be allowed to either. A person's sexuality, sexual practice, personal beliefs, interests, habits, hobbies, mannerisms and so on are their business, and they can do what they like without me or anyone else justifiably calling them immoral - even if we find what they do distasteful.

Would you feel differently if you had a personal experience that convinced you that God really existed?

In the public sphere matters become a little more problematic. But I think we are nevertheless able to construct a loose form of morality, grounded of course in human affairs and the "real world". What this code will be will depend upon the structure and form of the polity involved: for different people with different beliefs in different places and at different times it may, understandably enough, be different.

So you don't see some values that are universally held in all cultures?

Whilst I don't claim to have "worked it all out" yet, I think we can at least establish a few starting principles which point in the right direction. I tend to veer towards the utilitarian ethic, to decide the "goodness" or "badness" of public actions on the amount of happiness they produce for the greatest number. So, for example, someone who goes around robbing old grannies of their possessions is "wrong" insofar as they are harming that person, making them personally unhappy and making a great many more unhappy out of the ensuing fear for individual safety.

Agreed.

It's hard to conceive of people sitting there judging individual actions on how much "happiness" and "unhappiness" they produce, but I think that a general morality can be established on the basis of what generally brings about such things about - the consequence being that murder, rape, theft and so on are deemed "wrong". In the final resort, I think people will have to always keep an eye on present reality, and be willing to make exceptions in terms of practicality and the "common good" as and when these arise.

Again, agreed.

Again, I stress that I by no means have "all the answers", but I think any practically minded ethical code based upon reason and human concerns is preferable to the Christian absolute moral paradigm.

Well, my dear friend, neither do I have all the answers. I have a different "faith" than you do; is there really any need to be ugly to one another because of that? Do we not share a common humanity that should unite us in love rather than in hate?

Yes. I am, in actual fact, a 95 year-old man, smoking my pipe and drinking copious quantities of scotch as I while away my senility in my country estate.

Bon appetit!

 

[LOSTONE]

Such thinking can, hardly surprisingly, often lead you to apathy and despondency, and you're never going to find an answer to those questions that will satisfy you - simply because there is no answer.

I feel sorry for you Monkeydust .

I can remember when I used to think this way. I never liked the idea that we are all just liveing our lives so that we can just die someday.

Life is such an amazing gift, only to vanish and never return?
There is no point?
There is no answer?

These are sad sad thoughts indeed!

I just hope that you are fully sure of yourself Monkeydust.
If I still thought that there was no point, I would be actively looking for the point thats for sure.

What is the point if there is no point?

What is the point if there is no point?

DEATH.

 

[Monkeydust]

You may not have been brainwashed, personally, but when you sneer, that's what goes through my mind -- that you are not willing to talk to me properly, in such a way that we can continue speaking and perhaps even learn from one another.

It's nothing personal. I appreciate that I'm never going to convince you of my "side of things" however hard I try. The harshness is simply (a) to make things a little more fun, (b) because people who are undecided on the issue need to see things for what they are without being couched in respectuful terms and (c) because it comes naturally out of my dislike for certain aspects of Christianity and certain Christians.

I apologize for (c), since I shouldn't really be applying my attitudes towards certain Christians upon others of whom I know little or nothing. But on account (a) and (b) I choose to remain as I am.

But you do not have the knowledge to make such a statement. How can you say there are no apples on the table unless you know what is on the table? To think that you challenge MY logic while making such a statement boggles the mind.

But that's not the situation is it.

I'm not saying that I know there are no apples on the table, I'm simply saying to you that, since neither of us has seen the table, it makes no sense for either of us can claim with any certainty that anything is on it.

Until we know whethere or not there's apples on the table it makes most sense to act "as if" there are not.

I am not here to prove anything, and I never said I was, so please do not twist my words. That's called "dishonesty." So you are going to claim you are a master of logic and say that because YOU cannot determine something, that NECESSARILY means that particular something does not exist?

If we're getting technical about it, I never said that you said that you were here to prove anything. I simply stated that you need to prove the validity of such a belief if you wish to follow its attendant beliefs or encourage others to do so.

The nature of logic is that no one's that "master" of it, but all are equally subject to its rules. Again I reiterate that I don't know whether or not this "something" exists, only that until we find persuasive evidence as to its existence it doesn't make sense to accept it as the basis for our way of life.

I am entirely supportive of your end position -- not believing anything until you find a reason, but to say that something does not exist is to say that you know what DOES exist. And you don't, do you? Do you know whether there is a "soul" or not? No, you don't. But do you really have the audacity to declare that no such thing exists? Come ON, pumpkin!!

If people reasoned like this in real life we wouldn't get very much done.

I don't "know" if there are fairies under my bed; I don't "know" that I'm not going to have a heart-attack and die in five minutes; I don't know that a plane's not going to come crashing through my wall in an hour's time; don't "know" if the Greeks weren't right all along and that we should bow down and worship Zeus and Poseidon rather than live our lives as we do

The point is, until you find actual evidence that something exists, it makes sense to act "as if" it doesn't exist and to go so far as to practically claim that it may as well not exist. What else can we do?

And don't call me pumpkin!

And because there is no "age 21" for you that you know about, such a thing does not exist and you will die in the next year, right?

Nice quip, but I've actually got 3 years till I hit 21 so I'll probably be fine for a while yet.

"Love your neighbor as you love yourself" is repulsive? I cannot believe you think that. What specifically do you find repulsive?

Hmmm...

How about oppressing and advocating the persecution of homosexuals? Institutionalizing sexism in the form of the view that men are somehow the "better" sex and that a husband can is allowed to beat his wife has to get a mention too.

Then there's all the stuff about how slavery's "ok", for instance:

You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance... Lev 25:44

or:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

And then there's the downright absurd declaration that eating shellfish is an "abomination" (Lev 10:10). I like shellfish!

I suppose at a more subtle level I dislike any mode of thought that tries to put an end to reasoned argument, and instead advocates unquestioning obedience to some all-knowing authority. There's also the argument to be had on the practical implications of organized religion. Quite apart from the ideal, it very often has bad effects.

Would you feel differently if you had a personal experience that convinced you that God really existed?

It would depend on what you meant by "personal experience", of course.

So you don't see some values that are universally held in all cultures?

Well...yeah. I wasn't saying that all values are completely and utterly different in all respects. I was simply saying that most differ to the extent that they have some difference in value.

Well, my dear friend, neither do I have all the answers. I have a different "faith" than you do; is there really any need to be ugly to one another because of that? Do we not share a common humanity that should unite us in love rather than in hate?

Your "faith" is completely incompatible with my beliefs. That doesn't mean that I hate you as a person. It just means that I hate some of your beliefs, and in any debate in which you espouse them I'm going to sound as if I hate you. That's just the way it is. I don't see any good reason to change.

 

[LOSTONE]

You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance... Lev 25:44

or:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

And then there's the downright absurd declaration that eating shellfish is an "abomination" (Lev 10:10). I like shellfish!

Monkeydust when you try to understand bible teaching from an atheist point of view, you will have many problems. There are actually many many more thangs to get upset about the in bible when takeing the wrong approach. I still find things that seem disturbing about the bible, but every time I look into whatever is trubleing me I ALWAYS find a good answer.
If you have any questions send me a PM and I will try to explain.
Do you really want answers or do you just want to think that your point of view is the only point of view. I have answers for the slave question and the shellfish question. But please dont wast my time.

 

[peacedove]

Please answer the slave question and shellfish question because I don't understand the bible either and I'd like to know why God condones slavery. I'm not so interested in shellfish but whatever.

 

[LOSTONE]

OK!

First of all the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures are diffrent than the Christian greek scriptures.

Genesis 17:9 And God said further to Abraham: ?As for you, you are to keep my covenant, you and your seed after you according to their generations.

This covenant made Abrahams seed a special people to God.
This covenant was used in order to show us the importance of sin, sacrifice and other things.
We are now under a new covenant - 1Corinthians 11:25 He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: ?This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.

As for slavery. The bible sometimes uses the term to mean an act of self sacrifice. Galatians 5:13 YOU were, of course, called for freedom, brothers; only do not use this freedom as an inducement for the flesh, but through love slave for one another.

The reason God gave laws conserning slavery is because he cares for the slave just as much as for the master. These slaves were not the same as most slaves. Deuteronomy 24:7 In case a man is found kidnapping a soul of his brothers of the sons of Israel, and he has dealt tyrannically with him and sold him, that kidnapper must also die. And you must clear away what is bad from your midst.
As you can see here anyone kidnapping was to be put to death. Therefore the slaves did not become slaves out of force.
Where did the slaves come from?
Some were purchased but later set free. Exodus 21:2 In case you should buy a Hebrew slave, he will be a slave six years, but in the seventh he will go out as one set free without charge.
Deuteronomy 15:12-14 In case there should be sold to you your brother, a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, and he has served you six years, then in the seventh year you should send him out from you as one set free. 13 And in case you should send him out from you as one set free, you must not send him out empty-handed. 14 You should surely equip him with something from your flock and your threshing floor and your oil and winepress. Just as Jehovah your God has blessed you, you should give to him.

Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty.

God does not condone slavery 1Corinthians 7:23 YOU were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men.
Acts 10:34 Ecclesiastes 8:9

Many people are slaves to sin anyway.
John 8:34 Jesus answered them: ?Most truly I say to YOU, Every doer of sin is a slave of sin.

I could go on and on but I think you all see what I am getting at.
If you want more info goto. http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/200 ... cle_01.htm

As for shellfish, thats an easy one. I am not going to post scripture but
I will say that there is nothing wrong with eating shellfish. In the old days many foods were not to be eaten because of health concerns.
God was looking out for his peoples well being.
There are many old laws that are simply for his peoples well being.

I hope I have been helpfull, I am going to bed now .

 

[Sojourner]

This might be helpful. Warning: Not light reading.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

 

[LOSTONE]

Sojourner I am suprised by you. Usally Witnesses are more at ends with Catholics than with Atheists.
I like that we can get along .
I really thought that you would turn on me when I told you I was an unbaptized Witness. Thanks for not doing so.