sugarhitman

I suspect had it been the Jews saying this against the Reich you would be saying......"Fairy tales"

WVIncagold

So a simple question i am posing to shtmn, arnaldo, and steve is this.
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.
So is the bible the inspired word of god to be followed without critic or just a bunch of suggestions from a god that was no better than the surrounding gods who by the way never declared him to be the one true god? Considering your gods fear that others would turn away so quickly from him sounds like he was the erkel of gods in that area and nobody took him all that serious ( amongst the other gods anyways).

Oh and this as well

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

sugarhitman

Johnny, will you respond? Because this disproves your favortism arguement. Or have you accepted defeat? :wave:

sugarhitman

We are slaves. without the greenback you don't have shelter, food or clothing.
You know when you sign your name on those CONTRACTS at those various workplaces you become a slave.


Everyone serves sombody else.

sugarhitman

Johnnnnnyyy. :wave::wave: look at me Johnny have your eyes now been closed...your mouth now shut?

sugarhitman

Now im really beginning to doubt your "30 years as an evangelist" testimony. Because posts like this for someone with such an extensive study of the bible is just....****.


Jesus did not come to establish a new religion but to correct Israel.


Isaiah 53 not about the Messiah? Then tell us former Evangelist who is it then?

arnoldo

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pseudoskepticism :See Above

Sheshonq

The questions were in the thread where you were participating. And you knew I was participating, since you were responding to other posts. You are either careless or trying to avoid giving an answer.

No, I provided three alternatives to slavery:

1. living on their own;
2. moving to where work was plentiful; for example, Egypt;
2. indentured servitude - which is not slavery, no matter how many times you try to blur the distinction;

No, that was dishonest of you to mischaracterize my position.


The only thing that you have "gone over" is the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Your claims on those counts were refuted. One more time:

A) those that sold themselves due to destitution - not slavery, this is indentured servitude;
B) those sentenced to slavery due to crime - also not slavery, this is indentured servitude as a form of punishment and restitution;
C) those made subjects as a result of surrender - they did not surrender, they were taken prisoner. This is slavery and it is immoral.

1. Then you were doing so dishonestly, because neither A nor B is slavery. Both are forms of indentured servitude.

2. You've also been trying to rationalize the inheritance of the state of slavery over generations. So you have also been talking about C, despite your claim to be only addressing A and B.

2. But since the Hebrews practiced all three kinds, you still haven't addressed the immorality of C.


No, it was answered by repeating your claim. My question, however, was not addressed. Are you going to address it now?

The ones on the legs of the slaves. Or did you think that slaves were allowed to wander freely?

You also failed to adress part 1 and part 2 of what I wrote above:

1. slavery was an inherited condition - how is that rehabilatory? (Note also that your discussion of slavery as inherited demonstrates that you are not confining your comments to merely indentured servitude)

2. there is no evidence that these people "needed' to be slaves for their own survival - in point of fact, you contradict yourself on this claim


Of course it does. The problem is that you are trying to rationalize it, instead of admitting that the OT support of slavery is a moral failure in the bible.

Sheshonq

Because the context of the conversation - the question on the table - was already established (i.e., the destitute poor who cannot pay back their debt). You yourself established that context in this post. Afterwards, Exciter responded to your question:

Simple, forgiveness of debt.

But then in your next post you tried to use your question to widen the scope of that to fprgiveness of ALL debt, that amounted to changing the topic and mischaracterizing Exciter's position. I corrected you because you were in the process of using your question to make a strawman.

Facts not in evidence. Their desperation may come from the inability to pay a debt.

Nope. If the loan was what was making you destitute, then without the loan you have a fighting chance to stand on your own again. That's how bankruptcy works.

You think wrongly.

sugarhitman

Hey the Atheists are attacking the abuses of Allah and Islam at GRD.....are you going to defend Allah. :huh: