There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[TheGunShoj]

It is futile to try and prove me wrong on scripture because you are trying to prove God wrong. To my knowledge not a single atheist has ever been able to do that honestly so the effort in trying is a waste of time. You cannot make a lie of the truth

I just did. Slavery is wrong, your God supports it. God is wrong. Sorry.

 

[adi2d]

Hey, you made yourself a big man to make the accusation now show where I have cut and pasted anything without sourcing it.

You can make yourself a bigger man by giving me the post # where I said you did

 

[Serenity7855]

I just did. Slavery is wrong, your God supports it. God is wrong. Sorry.

No, what you have done is to express an anecdotal opinion that is wrong. We all make mistakes. You just do it more then most.

 

[Serenity7855]

You can make yourself a bigger man by giving me the post # where I said you did

Post 3432

Isn't there a word for that? Copying someone elses words without giving credit. I'm sure there's a word for that. Pla. Plag. Something like that. I'm sure the word was something like that

 

[adi2d]

Post 3432

That is my post but I don't see where I accused you of anything. Your not named in my post or the post I responded to

You now have another chance to be a man and admit you wrongly accused me

 

[TheGunShoj]

No, what you have done is to express an anecdotal opinion that is wrong. We all make mistakes. You just do it more then most.

Dude, these are rules regarding slavery that came directly from your God. At no point does he ever mention that it is immoral to own another human being as property which is the correct moral stance. In fact, he says that you can beat your slave within an inch of their life as long as they don't die for a day or two. That's not a "job" or "indentured servitude" and if you want to say it is then you are being completely dishonest.

If God were actually a moral authority

1. You shall not rape.
   
2. You shall not own human beings as property.
3. Honor your father and your mother.
4. You shall not murder.
5. You shall not commit adultery.
6. You shall not steal.
7. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
8. You shall not covet.
   
   And probably other revisions but you get the idea.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes because it was a requirement. Pretty sure if someone gave him the option to be a slave and NOT have a spike put through his ear, he'd choose that. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't almost all of us?

I do not know, I did not live in those times under those circumstances. These slaves had a choice. They willingly choose to remain with their masters. They were not forced into anything. You are trying to portray them as though they were slaves in the USA in the 18th century. They were nothing like that and your attempts to convince us that it was is dishonest and in vain. God is a God of love. That you did not find that is not his fault. Just because you failed to find him does not mean that he does not exist, he does, of that I can testify unreservedly. You need to reconsider your vendetta against him.

 

[Shad]

Hey, why not go with Shad's post where he compares my post with the one on the site that it actually did come from and for which I have sourced it to that very site with a link. He thinks he is being so very clever in trying to catch me out in plagiarism, but he did not check the continuation post that had the link at the bottom of it. Some poster are so eager to prove Christians wrong that they trip over themselves by doing so and in the process making a right baboon of themselves. It is futile to try and prove me wrong on scripture because you are trying to prove God wrong. To my knowledge not a single atheist has ever been able to do that honestly so the effort in trying is a waste of time. You cannot make a lie of the truth

The point was people are just Goggling answers and take anything from the net which confirms a bias. People do not check if the website or author is credible. They do not do any research of their own or of the source they use. Heck I can not even get people to use a lexicon for their own holy texts. As long as any random website has an answer they accept it gets posted here. This is what debate seems to be on this forum. Google, copy/paste and gloating of how greats one's Google skills are. Yet people expect to be taken seriously when they themselves can not provide credible sources. Why should anyone take an unaccredited anonymous source from the net seriously. Sources made by authors with no name nor credible in any academic field. People quote blogs as sources as if these are an acceptable standard.

"I have an opinion which I will back up with a source, which is just some other anonymous nobody's opinion I Googled."

 

[Serenity7855]

That is my post but I don't see where I accused you of anything. Your not named in my post or the post I responded to

You now have another chance to be a man and admit you wrongly accused me

Nah, I know what you did and so do you. You are playing on words for the whole forum to see. I said before and I am sure I will say it again, you are dangerous to converse with as you practice entrapment. You did not say it but you slyly insinuated it.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I do not know, I did not live in those times under those circumstances. These slaves had a choice. They willingly choose to remain with their masters. They were not forced into anything. You are trying to portray them as though they were slaves in the USA in the 18th century. They were nothing like that and your attempts to convince us that it was is dishonest and in vain. God is a God of love. That you did not find that is not his fault. Just because you failed to find him does not mean that he does not exist, he does, of that I can testify unreservedly. You need to reconsider your vendetta against him.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

So this is what you call a job? Not slavery? This is moral? A loving God taking care of his children by allowing them to be beaten within an inch of their life without repercussions?

This is sick.

 

[adi2d]

Nah, I know what you did and so do you. You are playing on words for the whole forum to see. I said before and I am sure I will say it again, you are dangerous to converse with as you practice entrapment. You did not say it but you slyly insinuated it.[/QUOTE


Thanks for admitting you were wrong. I did not say what you said I did

Now to get back on topic. You say the slave had a choice. What choice did the wife and children have? The way I read this story the wife and children would remain slaves regardless of what the husband decided

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Slavery is wrong, your God supports it..

The Old T God wasn't some mush-brained lefty social worker!
If ancient tribes were threatening Israel he had to zap them so that Israel would be a relatively safe place to send his son later on.
Anyway, he could have ordered the heathens to be slaughtered but no, he let them be kept as slaves instead, see he's all heart..

 

[Iti oj]

The Old T God wasn't some mush-brained lefty social worker!
If ancient tribes were threatening Israel he had to zap them so that Israel would be a relatively safe place to send his son later on.
Anyway, he could have ordered the heathens to be slaughtered but no, he let them be kept as slaves instead, see he's all heart..

as opposed to the times where he did order the slaughter.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

as opposed to the times where he did order the slaughter.

If they were "failed human beings" they had to be removed from the gene pool.
Like I said, God's not a handwringing lefty social worker..

"Lord, pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name" (Psalm 79:6)

 

[TheGunShoj]

The Old T God wasn't some mush-brained lefty social worker!
If ancient tribes were threatening Israel he had to zap them so that Israel would be a relatively safe place to send his son later on.
Anyway, he could have ordered the heathens to be slaughtered but no, he let them be kept as slaves instead, see he's all heart..

I can't even take this seriously.

 

[adi2d]

I can't even take this seriously.

I don't think shuttle takes it serious either

 

[Serenity7855]

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

So this is what you call a job? Not slavery? This is moral? A loving God taking care of his children by allowing them to be beaten within an inch of their life without repercussions?

This is sick.

Yes, that is what you want it to be, which is why your are putting your own spin on it. The sense is that if a man beats his slave (not a mere hired hand), with the obvious intention of killing him; he shall face charges for murder - but if the slave is beaten, but then lingers on for a day or two; and it is clear from the fact that his demise comes about more as a case of manslaughter; that the master did not intend to beat him to death; the man will be acquitted of charges of intentional homicide and it shall be viewed as a manslaughter - unintentional homicide; and the man's loss shall be the loss of his slave. But you omit to add that to your critique of God. You have also failed to notice but this entire assertion is based on mens action and not Gods.

Eye for eye - The execution of this law is not put into the hands of private persons, as if every man might avenge himself, which would introduce universal confusion. The tradition of the elders seems to have put this corrupt gloss upon it. But magistrates had an eye to this rule in punishing offenders, and doing right to those that are injured.

Exodus 21 Commentary - Wesley's Explanatory Notes

 

[Serenity7855]

as opposed to the times where he did order the slaughter.

When was that then, only, as far as I know, God did not communicate with mankind after the fall. He could not as he is perfect and cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection, so, I would be interested to know how he communicated his words to mortal man, as a whole, or was it through his pre-ordained Prophets? The distinction is important.

 

[Iti oj]

When was that then, only, as far as I know, God did not communicate with mankind after the fall. He could not as he is perfect and cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection, so, I would be interested to know how he communicated his words to mortal man, as a whole, or was it through his pre-ordained Prophets? The distinction is important.

Because using a prophet Makes it better

 

[Iti oj]

Samuel 15:3-4 Joshua 6:17 Leviticus 18:24-28 Deuteronomy 9:14 18:9-14