gdeering

This thread has really been an education in theistic willful ignorance. What is the record for such threads? Can you guys make it to thirty pages?

Gregg

sugarhitman

But how can Muslims who enslave today, commit genocide today, commit terrorism today commanded by Allah attack the God of Israel. Your "in between" statement is evasive because you cannot defend your god.....and yet attacks the God of Israel......WOW!



So what then do you say about Allah (which I know you will not answer).



Have you visited GRD lately?

Sheshonq

He's not interested in debating the Quran.

He's interested in AVOIDING a debate on the bible's support of slavery.

Just wanted to clarify that, cause you never know - in spite of how obvious his ploy is, there might be people on the other side of the planet who had lingering doubts about his motivations.

Sheshonq

1. Already answered that.
2. Anyone can criticize the bible, since the bible makes claims and can be judged by those claims
3. You still dont get a round of applause for fulfilling obligations that you put on your own back by your own claims.

1. No, it's an accurate view of how religions and their followers operate. Religious belief is a spectrum, whether you like it or not. It just makes you unhappy that you weren't able to pigeonhole me.

2. It makes you even unhappier that you now realize you aren't getting any debate on Islam out of me until / unless you:

a. finish answering questions already posed to you; and
b. support the many off-hand claims you've made in this thread

WVIncagold

Thats not slavery unless you can show that freemen did not exist at the time of slaves and master and who were paid tradesmen. We are not talking about exchanging your trade or work for money. That is an equal exchange. you pay money to someone who can do what you cannot do or not willing to do.
Equating slavery to work is sloppy, shows your ignorance of the subject, and is apples and oranges.

No pay.
Your boss owns your home where you reside.
Your boss owns your food and how much you get.
your boss owns your clothes and how much you may wear.
your boss owns the water you may drink and decides how much.
You boss may beat you, but only so much that you may not get up for two days.
Your boss may FUCK you literally insert penis into your ass any time he wishes to do so.
You boss may do this with all your children and significant other.

So all these conditions apply to you? these are the conditions of slavery
No injecting the theory of you get paid and blah blah.
Once you do so you loose the argument. slaves do not get paid and have no choice. all the above applys for slavery. You obviosly have no concept of what slavery is.

so again i ask even though i know the stupid is going to hurt

Since slavery was so nice and is supported by the bible then would you support it today in order to fend off hunger and destitution? After all it is rehablitation and people could get trades according to the assertions in this thread.

lets narrow it down shall we. so you support the above is a good thing for us a a society to adopt in order to cure our woes we should take people as slaves
which means they recieve
No pay.
Your boss owns your home where you reside.
Your boss owns your food and how much you get.
your boss owns your clothes and how much you may wear.
your boss owns the water you may drink and decides how much.
You boss may beat you, but only so much that you may not get up for two days.
Your boss may FUCK you literally insert penis into your ass any time he wishes to do so. ( i know we all think we get fucked by our bosses but thats not how it is meant)
You boss may do this with all your children and significant other regardless if you ever pay back the credit card debt you owe forever no matter what right down to willing your family to his kids.

WVIncagold

:rolling: its like talking to a two year old. what i find funny and my irony meter broke when he said you can't argue the bible yet he thinks he can argue the Q'ran. :rolling: My that one made me cry i laughed so hard. Well happy new year i wont be back on for a couple days. see if anyone has any luck getting shtman to answer anything on this subject.
Basically i see he condones slavery and thinks its a good idea. its moral and a nice intitution because his bible says so. same with steve and arnaldo.

sugarhitman

The bible condones slavery? How about Allah and Mohammed.


Atleast Israel's was voluntary. Islam not only helped their "christian" enemies during the african slave trade but they continue this practice TODAY, including GENOCIDE, and TERRORISM.


What defence do you have?

Sheshonq

Yep. And apparently you do as well, since you've been trying to excuse the bible (in between fleeing from the question).

Already answered that.


No it wasn't - their prisoners of war had no choice in the matter, and the children of those prisoners were slaves as well.

As usual, the skeptics know more about the bible than the so-called christians do.

sugarhitman

You did not answer that question.



So I will ask again is there justification for the endorsement of slavery by Islam which is practiced today? What defence do you have for Muhammed and Allah?


(Watch she will not answer this)

Exciter

Actually only one that I need to address, but I'll gladly restate what I said about the other two.

You have offered quotes from the Bible that were wrong and that you tried to show that slaves could've been serfs by showing a Strong note not related to the passage concerned.

Do you still not understand that the Bible is not considered reliable to me, especially the way you want to present it?

Assumed to be child sacrifice ..... because the Bible says so. That was according to a course outline you linked to from Cornell University, which you then falsely accused me of calling them Christian apologetics, lol.

Yes, this:
Diodorus is relating something he was told and not something he witnessed.

What was happening was an attack by the Greeks, who also are considered to have used child sacrifice as a propaganda tool against the Carthaginians.

I like how you omitted the fact that they were under attack, but maybe all you have and/or are willing to look at is that partial passage, by a historian who is not regarded to be one of the better historians. I do believe he did his best with what he had to work with, though.


ETA That's one, two, three strikes, Steve, but it'd be immoral in my opinion to say you are out.

I'm still willing to consider any of the other thousands of sources you claim to have.

Since I am a freeman and not bound by the morals and slavery of the modern age as being suggested [not by you, exactly] I have plenty of time and am willing to look at what ever you have.

Thanks ia advance for your efforts and patience, it is appreciated.