• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
which is way i have no issue admitting my intent.

Well of course you don't, you are an aggressive atheist with no moral accountability, and the two other atheists, patting your back, are as gullible as you to think that God could not respond to such a trivial point. Can you now at least see why I ignored your drivel.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Be careful friend. It doesn't help much to give bible verses to the serene one. He has the Holy Ghost on his side. He can never be wrong. In this thread he has said humans appeared during the cambrian. God is helpless God couldn't stop an apple from falling off table. You should skim the thread. Its interesting reading. Funny at times. "God condoms"

Anyway. Have fun

My dear old mum used to say that if you can't say anything nice about someone then you should not say anything at all, especially when it is taken out of context and dishonestly twisted by an aggressive atheists whose only reason for being here is to harass Christians.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Actually its because there hasn't been a case for Intelligence in cosmological arguments.

The scientific cosmologies only lay claim to what we are pretty sure of. Which is right after the big bang. Science doesn't make any claims of facts or knowledge prior to this that I am aware of.

You are right, science doesn't, but some atheists here do.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Scientific cosmologies are basically mathematical formulations derived from particle physics and telescopic observation. The telescope can fool the eye, as Percival Lowell learned when he saw canals on Mars. And, it can probably fool an electronic detector as well. A telescopic image or spectrum requires interpretation. For instance, the red shift involves inferences made by comparing the telescope's spectrum with a similar one produced in the lab, under the assumption the same physical process is behind both.

I don't have the qualifications needed to evaluate the Big Bang theory, so I'm willing to accept the judgment of experts who state that it is sound according to current standards of science. Which is good.

But look at a child's book on the subject. Issues of provisional truth are beyond the maturity of 11-year olds to appreciate, so absolute truth is presented to them instead, with pictures of gasses flying out from a central bright area of the picture and galaxies condensing near the margins.

I agree there's no direct evidence that an intelligent being is involved in any fundamental physical process. Belief in a creator is strictly a matter of faith. But our sciences also require more faith and more interpretation than we acknowledge. :)


I think I am in agreement with you. I am a bit sleepy so if I re-read this in the morning with a clearer mind I'm not back-tracking. Anyway, disclaimer out of the way.

Nothing is absolute but the evidence is strong without a lot of evidence to the contrary. What happened "before" (though the term is nonsensical given the circumstance) is completely unknown.

But when teaching the best method is to tell them what we know to be the best ideas. I don't think that they are teaching them anything that isn't well established facts. They don't fully have the ability to think about it critically and understand the nature of knowledge and the way that we derive it from observations and the amount of varied certitude attributed to each individual concept.

And despite what many people seem to be thinking on this site I have no problem with people holding the "god" answer to the cosmological argument as a matter of faith but I do have a problem with people taking it as some kind of answer they arrived at purely on the evidence with no faith interference.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
Yes, I knew that was your angle, but your trap was anticipated. I have been around you atheists for some time and know your dishonest methods well.

A commandment, principle and precept is as valid today as 4000 years ago, regardless of culture. To commit adultery by having sex with a married woman, or visa versa, is the same sin now as it has ever been. Slavery is as wrong today as it was then, we know this as it is probably as prevalent today. What is different, and must be taken into consideration, is colloquialisms.

The definitions of the words must be evaluated, like "theory" has a different meaning in science then it does outside of science. Slavery then meant volunteering to work for someone in return for food, shelter and protection. Slavery in the 18th century, and today, means one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune forever with no likelihood of freedom and every likelihood of being abused. The two words are the same, however, their meanings are very different. The same mistake that TheGunShoj kept making.

I wonder If the same kind of thraldom was used in today's day and age, whether we would see children dying in Africa from malnutrition.

So yes, the bible is the same throughout all ages. Every individual contravention of the law has a severity and a consequence.

Your trap has been sprung but the bate was taken without any harm to the target. I knew it was coming. Thank you for keeping me on my toes.

The laws for non Hebrew slaves are vastly different.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The definitions of the words must be evaluated, like "theory" has a different meaning in science then it does outside of science. Slavery then meant volunteering to work for someone in return for food, shelter and protection. Slavery in the 18th century, and today, means one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune forever with no likelihood of freedom and every likelihood of being abused.

Apologies for the drop-in, the topic of the OP isn't overly interesting to me. But I do study classical history. IN what sense do you believe slavery historically meant 'Volunteering for work in return for food, shelter and protection'?

Do you doubt that there were slaves forcibly removed from homelands, given no legal status, and sold as property?

Apologies in advance if I've missed the context. Readily admit I've only skim read majority of thread.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Apologies for the drop-in, the topic of the OP isn't overly interesting to me. But I do study classical history. IN what sense do you believe slavery historically meant 'Volunteering for work in return for food, shelter and protection'?

Do you doubt that there were slaves forcibly removed from homelands, given no legal status, and sold as property?

Apologies in advance if I've missed the context. Readily admit I've only skim read majority of thread.

No, I am sure that there were those that were taken from homelands, given no legal status, and sold as property? The argument is whether God orchestrated it or not. The point being discussed is one of the Old Testament Book - Exodus, as follows.

Exodus 21:2-6 (KJV)

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

My contention is that God would not orchestrate such an act and that it was mankind that set it up, and the atheists here, excluding yourself and Monk of Reason, insist that the Christian God is wicked and evil because he allowed slavery, indeed, they suggest he condoned it. TheGunShoj is particular angry with me because I will not admit I am wrong in my deliberations and accept that my God is in fact evil. That is it really. They conclude, that the God they do not believe in, is a wicked and evil God.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
No, I am sure that there were those that were taken from homelands, given no legal status, and sold as property? The argument is whether God orchestrated it or not. The point being discussed is one of the Old Testament Book - Exodus, as follows.

f you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

My contention is that God would not orchestrate such an act and that it was mankind that set it up, and the atheists here, excluding yourself and Monk of Reason, insist that the Christian God is wicked and evil because he allowed slavery. TheGunShoj is particular angry with me because I will not admit I am wrong in my deliberations and accept that my God is in fact evil. That is it really.

No. The argument is not about whether god orchestrated slavery it is whether or not he advocated for it.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I am sure that there were those that were taken from homelands, given no legal status, and sold as property? The argument is whether God orchestrated it or not. The point being discussed is one of the Old Testament Book - Exodus...

Okay, that clarifies it for me, thanks. I'm reasonably familiar with Exodus (mainly because it comes up in these sort of discussions regularly...!)

My contention is that God would not orchestrate such an act and that it was mankind that set it up, and the atheists here, excluding yourself and Monk of Reason, insist that the Christian God is wicked and evil because he allowed slavery, indeed, they suggest he condoned it. TheGunShoj is particular angry with me because I will not admit I am wrong in my deliberations and accept that my God is in fact evil. That is it really. They conclude, that the God they do not believe in, is a wicked and evil God.

I tend to split this in two. Evil exists in the world, so quite apart from Exodus or slavery, there is an argument to be had around God allowing evil. Which depends entirely on what your beliefs are in terms of God's omnibenevolence and omnipotence, really. Anyway, in terms of this topic, lets just say for me personally, the presence of slavery doesn't particularly speak to God condoning slavery.

Exodus 21 always just read like a very mundane list of laws more than anything divine. Particular discussion on the penalties for various transgressions...who's responsible for the damage caused by an open pit, etc.

I guess some read it as allegory, but it seems very literal to me. A list of all too human laws, extremely relevant to the times in which they were written. Heck, they might have even been enlightened based on the times in which they were written.

Ultimately, I would think the question comes back to the presence of evil in a world under the stewardship of an omnibenevolent/omnipotent God. Slavery is just an example, and probably not the best one, in my opinion.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Okay, that clarifies it for me, thanks. I'm reasonably familiar with Exodus (mainly because it comes up in these sort of discussions regularly...!)



I tend to split this in two. Evil exists in the world, so quite apart from Exodus or slavery, there is an argument to be had around God allowing evil. Which depends entirely on what your beliefs are in terms of God's omnibenevolence and omnipotence, really. Anyway, in terms of this topic, lets just say for me personally, the presence of slavery doesn't particularly speak to God condoning slavery.

Exodus 21 always just read like a very mundane list of laws more than anything divine. Particular discussion on the penalties for various transgressions...who's responsible for the damage caused by an open pit, etc.

I guess some read it as allegory, but it seems very literal to me. A list of all too human laws, extremely relevant to the times in which they were written. Heck, they might have even been enlightened based on the times in which they were written.
Ultimately, I would think the question comes back to the presence of evil in a world under the stewardship of an omnibenevolent/omnipotent God. Slavery is just an example, and probably not the best one, in my opinion.

It is at this point that I can demonstrate why God cannot be held accountable for the action of mankind. I believe in God's plan of Redemption. That plan cannot exist without total and complete free agency being given to mankind to act how they please without interventions. The second that God intervenes directly into that free agency the entire plan will no longer exist and the past 6,000 odd years would have been in vain. It is a physical impossibility for God to intervene as no unclean edifice can dwell in the presence of God. It is simply not a consideration, so when somebody claims that God gave directions to a people direct from His own mouth you know for a certainty that it is either a lie or that person is speaking from ignorance. If God did that then we would not be here discussing it.

Now, I can see that you are a non-believer, which is fine, we all have free agency to choose the paths we follow, however, may I ask you to come walk with me for but a while and savour some of my beliefs. I genuinely do believe in a Plan of Redemption and that it exists. There is no maybe in my mind just an actuality. That being the case these posters claiming that God intervened is nonsensical. It could not have happened during our walk together. Because of that I would have to lay down my life before I could concede the point, however, concede the point is what was expected.

The conclusion is that God does not have stewardship over this world. If anyone has stewardship right now it is Satan, after all, that was his plan. To force everyone to comply without giving them free agency. God sits back and weeps at what we have done to our world and ourselves. He is helpless to help. I hope you are able to see it through my eyes as much as I desperately seek to see it and understand it through yours. The sticking point is the belief that God can intervene.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Dead easy mate, God wrote the 'Creation/Evolution Program' then hit "Enter" to start it with a Big Bang..:)

Well, I can agree, but then my definition of "God" is "whatever caused our universe/multiverse", and then I'll just leave it at that. :D
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It is at this point that I can demonstrate why God cannot be held accountable for the action of mankind. I believe in God's plan of Redemption. That plan cannot exist without total and complete free agency being given to mankind to act how they please without interventions. The second that God intervenes directly into that free agency the entire plan will no longer exist and the past 6,000 odd years would have been in vain. It is a physical impossibility for God to intervene as no unclean edifice can dwell in the presence of God. It is simply not a consideration, so when somebody claims that God gave directions to a people direct from His own mouth you know for a certainty that it is either a lie or that person is speaking from ignorance. If God did that then we would not be here discussing it.

So, in terms of our recent history, you're saying you don't believe in an interventionist God? Prayers could be heard, but wouldn't be directly responded to, for example?

Now, I can see that you are a non-believer, which is fine, we all have free agency to choose the paths we follow, however, may I ask you to come walk with me for but a while and savour some of my beliefs.

I reckon we'll struggle to understand each other on some things, but a large part of why I'm here (on RF) is to better understand other people's views of the world, life, and religion. Happy to have a crack and see how we go.

I genuinely do believe in a Plan of Redemption and that it exists. There is no maybe in my mind just an actuality. That being the case these posters claiming that God intervened is nonsensical. It could not have happened during our walk together. Because of that I would have to lay down my life before I could concede the point, however, concede the point is what was expected.

Okay, so God set-up the environment, created us, and this life is basically our chance to redeem ourselves (as a species)? Sorry, I'm paraphrasing. Written some long posts tonight, and I'm a little keyboard-weary to be honest...!

I can understand a view that God doesn't intervene, as long as that view is consistently held. So no direct intervention at any point.
Well, obviously not 'at any point' completely, but I'll assume he was involved at the start of mankind, and will be at the end of mankind. The period in the middle, however long that might be, no intervention. Is that your belief?

The conclusion is that God does not have stewardship over this world. If anyone has stewardship right now it is Satan, after all, that was his plan. To force everyone to comply without giving them free agency. God sits back and weeps at what we have done to our world and ourselves. He is helpless to help. I hope you are able to see it through my eyes as much as I desperately seek to see it and understand it through yours. The sticking point is the belief that God can intervene.

So, to your mind, can God intervene but chooses not to (to test us perhaps) or is God unable to intervene (ie. not omnipotent)?
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
So, in terms of our recent history, you're saying you don't believe in an interventionist God? Prayers could be heard, but wouldn't be directly responded to, for example?

Prayers have always been answered by the influence of the Holy Ghost. The testator of all that is true. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.There is a very good theory, involving quantum sub-automic particles, on how he might do that, but maybe for another time.

I reckon we'll struggle to understand each other on some things, but a large part of why I'm here (on RF) is to better understand other people's views of the world, life, and religion. Happy to have a crack and see how we go.

Yes, of course we will not see eye to eye on everything, we both sit on opposite sides of the table. But isn't that what makes debating interesting and enjoyable?

Okay, so God set-up the environment, created us, and this life is basically our chance to redeem ourselves (as a species)? Sorry, I'm paraphrasing. Written some long posts tonight, and I'm a little keyboard-weary to be honest...!

I am not sure how the environment was set up, the formation of the earth, that is. We are told that God organised the matter that was into our earth, however, does that mean it was a result of his hands or the Big Bang that he might have caused. I do not think it matters either way but I just do not think it is set in stone either.

Yes, he created us from the dust of the earth, however, it is more then likely that he created everything else via the process of evolution by biogenesis. That is my belief.

Yes, Redemption is the name of the game. It is the reason for our existence. To be tried and tested in the flesh and then to be held accountable for our mortal probation, to be judged from the book of life by him who is worthy to judge us.

I can understand a view that God doesn't intervene, as long as that view is consistently held. So no direct intervention at any point.

It is essential for it to be consistently held to the point that no bilge pump is ever required in that boat. There can be no leaks. Complete abstinence from intervention or the boat sinks with all lives lost.

Well, obviously not 'at any point' completely, but I'll assume he was involved at the start of mankind, and will be at the end of mankind. The period in the middle, however long that might be, no intervention. Is that your belief?

You may regret asking that question, as I tend to go on a bit with subjects that really interest me. Interesting that you say this though. Essentially it is indeed my belief, but I need to qualify it. Not many non-believer actually know this. It is a crucial period of the Plan of Redemption consisting of many complex anomalies that were needed to make it all function correctly. In scripture we see a almost analogous story that on the surface seems straight forward and almost unnecessary in kick starting humanity. One of those complexities is that when the Garden of Eden was created it was in a state of perfection, celestialised. Nothing died and procreation was unnecessary because there was no requirement to replenish anything. Adam and Eve were created from the dust, that was without imperfections, and created as perfect being. Procreation for them was also unnecessary because they would never die. Procreation was not even known to them so they walked in their nakedness with no carnal desires for each other, as they were not carnal beings. They had no knowledge of how to procreate. God was able to freely dwell in their presence as they were like unto him, perfect. In that current state nothing would ever change and we, as spirits, would remain as we were with no means to gain a body through procreation.

God gave to Adam and Eve two commandments. One, that they should not eat from the tree of knowledge, and two, that they should go forth and multiply to replenish the earth, thereby, fulfilling Gods marvellous work and wonder to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Big problem there is that neither could be accomplished without breaking one of those commandments. Enter stage left, the facilitator, Satan, that old serpent who had been banned to dwell on earth.

Satan set about convincing the weaker of the two, Eve, to partake of the fruit because he wanted Eve to sin against God to demonstrate his influence. He thought he was successful, but, little did he know, he was playing into Gods hands, and she did eat of the fruit, making Gods second commandment possible, and then told Adam what she had done. After a big row, where Eve told Adam that he no longer showed her any affection and cares more about football then her, he had no option but to partake of the fruit as she would be in a fallen state making it impossible for him to be with her, so he had no option but to partake of the fruit at which time the fall had been set into motion. We all know what then followed, They became mortal and we're sent into the lone and dreary world to fend for themselves. The fall from perfection to mortality was complete. Humanity had been born and from that point God could not intervene, although they did hear his voice a couple of times, ordering Pizza, but did not see him.

Sorry about the length of that, it could be longer if I told it all but it is very complex and interwoven with the pre-existence and the war in heaven right up until the coming of the saviour and Armageddon. It is by no means a simple event. However, God was involved in the beginning because circumstances allowed for it. Will he be involved at the end? I don't know. Only after salvation and the Judgement day, that is for sure.

So, to your mind, can God intervene but chooses not to (to test us perhaps) or is God unable to intervene (ie. not omnipotent)?

No, that is not my belief. I now that I am going to be seen as controversial on this point but I believe that God has the power to do anything that can be done. That does not, in my opinion, detract from his omnipotence in anyway as logic dictates that you cannot do that which cannot be done, unless you are a magician owning a hat and a white rabbit. So no, I believe that there are supernatural laws that are the same as natural laws that cannot be changed. Like when a people become sufficiently wicked their destruction is assured. We are getting there. Once the plan of Redemption was set into motion then God could not intervene as to do so would stick a Huge spanner in the works messing everything up. It sound like God has constraints but if he were capable of doing the impossible there would be no need for our mortal probation. He could have just flicked his figures and we would all be back with him having perfected bodies and minds. It is a fallacy to think that God can do something that cannot be done.

I am sorry for the length of this but the Plan of Redemption is not a simple plan. I have skimmed the surface of it, however, the intricate details are not a requirement for salvation. Just to live a Christ like life is sufficient for everyone. I choose to ask questions and the answers caused me to ask more questions, until I came to a point where I am now familiar with every aspect of God's marvelous work and wonder, with discoveries in science strengthening my testimony everyday. A bit like starting a foundation course in maths and progressing from addition and subtraction, to algebra to quadratic equation, complex numbers, mathematical modelling, factors, geometry, integrational calculus, integration by parts and differentiational calculus. Each step built upon the previous step until the most intricate of calculations become as simple as it's foundation. Each step encouraging you to go deeper to understand more fully. It is quite a miraculous process. I feel like a pig in the perverbial, from morning to night, knowing what it is all about. Where we came from, why we are here, and where are we going. A place for everything and everything having a place. Which is why, when I say on here that I never get offended, I am telling the truth, because, but for the grace of God go I. I have exactly what they think doesn't exist. My only sadness is that I cannot give them what I have, but God has provided a way for all of mankind to come to know Him personally. A method that if adhered to is guaranteed to work and get you enrolled onto a foundation course that will eventually give you a Professorship in the character and will of God. It works everytime without fail. How's that. You cannot be fairer then that can you. Nice talking to you my friend.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the btruth of all things.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
The laws for non Hebrew slaves are vastly different.

I have been somewhat slow on this point. I had not realised the different bibles versions that TheGunShoj had been using to belie God. The only bible of worth, in my opinion, is the 400 year old King James Version. It is an inspired version. The verses in Exodus that he refers to are about servants, and not, as he has said, slaves. The difference is significant and the use of other bibles is ignis fatuus.

Exodus 21 King James Version

1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
 
Last edited:

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
I have been somewhat slow on this point. I had not realised the different bibles versions that TheGunShoj had been using to belie God. The only bible of worth, in my opinion, is the 400 year old King James Version. It is an inspired version. The verses in Exodus that he refers to are about servants, and not, as he has said, slaves. The difference is significant and the use of other bibles is ignis fatuus.

Exodus 21 King James Version

1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
So you would prefer we used only the KJV?

#4 still presents an issue I know the other guy was trying to communicate that.

And again these rules only apply to Hebrew slaves, with out protections for non Hebrew slaves.
 

TheGunShoj

Active Member
Translation is irrelevant. Call them slaves, don't call them slaves. Whichever you prefer. I prefer to call someone who you can purchase with money to be your property forever, who is passed on to your children as inheritance, and who you can beat as long as they don't die in two days, a slave. Even if they aren't "slaves" the endorsement of these behaviors towards another human being remains immoral. Now you're just playing word games and avoiding the real issue.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. (immoral)
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; (immoral)they shall be your bondmen for ever:(immoral) but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.leviticus 25:44 KJV


20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.(immoral) Exodus 21:20 KJV
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Translation is irrelevant. Call them slaves, don't call them slaves. Whichever you prefer. I prefer to call someone who you can purchase with money to be your property forever, who is passed on to your children as inheritance, and who you can beat as long as they don't die in two days, a slave. Even if they aren't "slaves" the endorsement of these behaviors towards another human being remains immoral. Now you're just playing word games and avoiding the real issue.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. (immoral)
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; (immoral)they shall be your bondmen for ever:(immoral) but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.leviticus 25:44 KJV


20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.(immoral) Exodus 21:20 KJV

You are confusing the whole argument. This has nothing to do with the ethics of slavery, it is universally accepted that it is immoral. The argument is that you claim that God sanctioned it. You do that specifically to stir Christians up as they are the only ones who will take accepting to your baseless claims. Trolling. Men take other men and force them into slavery, God does not, cannot. You are exchanging your inability to go the distance with the gratification obtained by decrying the source of your failure. In conclusion, the people of those times were wicked for what they did to their fellow man. That you try and blame God, someone you do not believe in, for such a despicable practice, is unreprehensible.
 
Top