Christians that hate and judge h0mosexuals are hypocrites....

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Yeah... Everything you mentioned has absolutely no impact on what i've said.

The bible got slavery wrong; what makes you think it got homosexuality right? "Because other books have contradictions" isn't an answer. Its a poor excuse to justify why your own book is allowed to be wrong - never even mind why you think it should be taken as truth.

th3warr1or

In your opinion, the Bible got slavery wrong. That the bible allows slavery being wrong is an opinion, not fact. You say every "civilized society" considers slavery immoral, and yet every civilized society had slaves at some point in time, some being as recent as 2 centuries back.

So you want the Bible to rule on something, and pass a law that NOBODY would keep, because 3000 years later slavery is going to be "immoral?"

No. Slavery is not immoral. To YOU, slavery is immoral. To MODERN society, slavery is immoral.

You also said that nothing he mentioned has any impact on what you said? Well it does, because it's an extremely regulated form of slavery that cannot even be considered the same form of servitude as American slavery. Were Americans required by law to FREE their slaves after 7 years?

When is slavery implemented? I bet you think the Israelites just sailed to Africa and shipped off people by the hundreds to sell.

1) If he stole and does not have the means to reimburse the victim. In this case the thief is sold by the courts and the money goes to pay for the stolen items.

2) A person is also allowed to sell himself as a slave if he is poverty-stricken and desperate.

I see absolutely nothing immoral about that.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

I disagree with the lifestyle, but my religious views are only an aspect of it. I disagree with it because anal sex is not healthy and quite risky, it can cause all kinds of issues, and I believe it's more "natural" for a man and woman. It just makes more sense to me.

However I support g@y rights and don't care if they get married. It's about love and tolerance.

XaosII

Eating fatty foods is not healthy and quite risky; it can cause all kinds of issues. Yet, i dont exactly see books preaching about how they should be second class citizens and not deserving of the same posthumous rewards as another person.

And don't even get me started on the "natural" argument. Polyester and plastics, as synthetically manufactured materials, aren't natural either. No one seems to mind.

I simpy said I personally disagree with it. No reason to go on a hyper bole here.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Yeah... Everything you mentioned has absolutely no impact on what i've said.

The bible got slavery wrong; what makes you think it got homosexuality right? "Because other books have contradictions" isn't an answer. Its a poor excuse to justify why your own book is allowed to be wrong - never even mind why you think it should be taken as truth.

th3warr1or

In your opinion, the Bible got slavery wrong. That the bible allows slavery being wrong is an opinion, not fact. You say every "civilized society" considers slavery immoral, and yet every civilized society had slaves at some point in time, some being as recent as 2 centuries back.

So you want the Bible to rule on something, and pass a law that NOBODY would keep, because 3000 years later slavery is going to be "immoral?"

No. Slavery is not immoral. To YOU, slavery is immoral. To MODERN society, slavery is immoral.

You also said that nothing he mentioned has any impact on what you said? Well it does, because it's an extremely regulated form of slavery that cannot even be considered the same form of servitude as American slavery. Were Americans required by law to FREE their slaves after 7 years?

When is slavery implemented? I bet you think the Israelites just sailed to Africa and shipped off people by the hundreds to sell.

1) If he stole and does not have the means to reimburse the victim. In this case the thief is sold by the courts and the money goes to pay for the stolen items.

2) A person is also allowed to sell himself as a slave if he is poverty-stricken and desperate.

I see absolutely nothing immoral about that.

All forms of slavery are wrong, even your dumb jewish "moral" slavery. It is "immoral" to people who think everyone should be treated equally as human beings. People who don't believe that now, and didn't in the past are wrong. End of story.

All forms of slavery are wrong, even your dumb jewish "moral" slavery. It is "immoral" to people who think everyone should be treated equally as human beings. People who don't believe that now, and didn't in the past are wrong. End of story.Jolt_counter119

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Yeah... Everything you mentioned has absolutely no impact on what i've said.

The bible got slavery wrong; what makes you think it got homosexuality right? "Because other books have contradictions" isn't an answer. Its a poor excuse to justify why your own book is allowed to be wrong - never even mind why you think it should be taken as truth.

BossPerson

In your opinion, the Bible got slavery wrong. That the bible allows slavery being wrong is an opinion, not fact. You say every "civilized society" considers slavery immoral, and yet every civilized society had slaves at some point in time, some being as recent as 2 centuries back.

So you want the Bible to rule on something, and pass a law that NOBODY would keep, because 3000 years later slavery is going to be "immoral?"

No. Slavery is not immoral. To YOU, slavery is immoral. To MODERN society, slavery is immoral.

You also said that nothing he mentioned has any impact on what you said? Well it does, because it's an extremely regulated form of slavery that cannot even be considered the same form of servitude as American slavery. Were Americans required by law to FREE their slaves after 7 years?

When is slavery implemented? I bet you think the Israelites just sailed to Africa and shipped off people by the hundreds to sell.

1) If he stole and does not have the means to reimburse the victim. In this case the thief is sold by the courts and the money goes to pay for the stolen items.

2) A person is also allowed to sell himself as a slave if he is poverty-stricken and desperate.

I see absolutely nothing immoral about that.

Again, there are only two instances where someone can become a slave, and there is nothing wrong with that implementation of slavery.

Being a slaver is punishable by death. G-d doesn't condone people randomly going up to a village and catching everyone. Kidnapping is punishable by death. You become a slave when you commit a crime that doesn't warrant taking your life, but you're unable to compensate the victim for the crime.

Tell me, what happens to bank robbers in modern society? How many years of prison do they get for armed robbery? I bet it's more than 7 years.

Slavery in the Torah lasts 7 years. Then the slave goes FREE. How is that "immoral?" You can't force someone who did nothing to get enslaved, and someone who deserves to get enslaved goes free after 7 years.

All forms of slavery are wrong, even your dumb jewish "moral" slavery. It is "immoral" to people who think everyone should be treated equally as human beings. People who don't believe that now, and didn't in the past are wrong. End of story.

Jolt_counter119

We are in disagreement then. I think your idea of what is moral or not is absurd and hypocritical considering such a thing as life-imprisonment probably exists in your country.

Taking a man's average lifespan to be 70 years, slavery is ONE TENTH the life-imprisonment.

In your opinion, the Bible got slavery wrong. That the bible allows slavery being wrong is an opinion, not fact. You say every "civilized society" considers slavery immoral, and yet every civilized society had slaves at some point in time, some being as recent as 2 centuries back.

So you want the Bible to rule on something, and pass a law that NOBODY would keep, because 3000 years later slavery is going to be "immoral?"

No. Slavery is not immoral. To YOU, slavery is immoral. To MODERN society, slavery is immoral.

You also said that nothing he mentioned has any impact on what you said? Well it does, because it's an extremely regulated form of slavery that cannot even be considered the same form of servitude as American slavery. Were Americans required by law to FREE their slaves after 7 years?

When is slavery implemented? I bet you think the Israelites just sailed to Africa and shipped off people by the hundreds to sell.

1) If he stole and does not have the means to reimburse the victim. In this case the thief is sold by the courts and the money goes to pay for the stolen items.

2) A person is also allowed to sell himself as a slave if he is poverty-stricken and desperate.

I see absolutely nothing immoral about that.

th3warr1or

The bible could have simply left it at: "If you stole, you must pay your debt" Instead it allowed slavery as possible options. It doesn tmatter if its regulated or conditional, its a pretty basic aspect of human morality that it was not right about. It doesn't matter *today* if it was acceptable back then - that still doesn't make it right. "Many other countries had slaves in past" is not a valid excuse as it still doesn't make it right.

At best, your argument only concedes to the fact that the bible is outdated. Not all of it, of course. The one about slavery *is now* wrong....but not the one about homosexuality?

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

All forms of slavery are wrong, even your dumb jewish "moral" slavery. It is "immoral" to people who think everyone should be treated equally as human beings. People who don't believe that now, and didn't in the past are wrong. End of story.

th3warr1or

We are in disagreement then. I think your idea of what is moral or not is absurd and hypocritical considering such a thing as life-imprisonment probably exists in your country.

How is imprisonment slavery? No one wants prisoners, they are dangerous and need to be separated from society. I'm gonna take a guess that your anceint jewish buddies enjoyed their slaves. Finally what makes you think I agree with my countries current Prison system?

Basically, imprisoning someone is to keep society safe and ensure that dangerous people can't do more harm, while your "slavery" is taking advantage of peoples poor sitiuation for your own gain.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Yeah... Everything you mentioned has absolutely no impact on what i've said.

The bible got slavery wrong; what makes you think it got homosexuality right? "Because other books have contradictions" isn't an answer. Its a poor excuse to justify why your own book is allowed to be wrong - never even mind why you think it should be taken as truth.

Jolt_counter119

In your opinion, the Bible got slavery wrong. That the bible allows slavery being wrong is an opinion, not fact. You say every "civilized society" considers slavery immoral, and yet every civilized society had slaves at some point in time, some being as recent as 2 centuries back.

So you want the Bible to rule on something, and pass a law that NOBODY would keep, because 3000 years later slavery is going to be "immoral?"

No. Slavery is not immoral. To YOU, slavery is immoral. To MODERN society, slavery is immoral.

You also said that nothing he mentioned has any impact on what you said? Well it does, because it's an extremely regulated form of slavery that cannot even be considered the same form of servitude as American slavery. Were Americans required by law to FREE their slaves after 7 years?

When is slavery implemented? I bet you think the Israelites just sailed to Africa and shipped off people by the hundreds to sell.

1) If he stole and does not have the means to reimburse the victim. In this case the thief is sold by the courts and the money goes to pay for the stolen items.

2) A person is also allowed to sell himself as a slave if he is poverty-stricken and desperate.

I see absolutely nothing immoral about that.

All forms of slavery are wrong, even your dumb jewish "moral" slavery. It is "immoral" to people who think everyone should be treated equally as human beings. People who don't believe that now, and didn't in the past are wrong. End of story.

Yes of course slavery is wrong. But I would hardly call what the ancient Jews did as "slavery". It's more like serventude, either to pay back a debt, or by one's own choosing in order to escape poverty or learn a skill.

It was never permanent, only temporary, and they were never allowed to be physically harmed in anyway what so ever. The moment one did the slave went free. It was nothing like slavery in the sense we think.

By no means is it like what we think of slavery today. And compared to the world at that time, it was quite humane. By no means am I saying it was right, but I would hardly call it slavery.

The bible could have simply left it at: "If you stole, you must pay your debt" Instead it allowed slavery as possible options. It doesn tmatter if its regulated or conditional, its a pretty basic aspect of human morality that it was not right about. It doesn't matter *today* if it was acceptable back then - that still doesn't make it right. "Many other countries had slaves in past" is not a valid excuse as it still doesn't make it right.

At best, your argument only concedes to the fact that the bible is outdated. Not all of it, of course. The one about slavery *is now* wrong....but not the one about homosexuality?

XaosII

You don't seem to understand this. The money HAS to come from somewhere. The dude who stole has no money to pay the debt. Who's going cover it? The state? The crown? The other people?

By no means am I saying it was right, but I would hardly call it slavery.

ShadowMoses900

So again, the bible seemed to have gotten a rather fundamental aspect of human morality incorrect. But not homosexuality?

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

All forms of slavery are wrong, even your dumb jewish "moral" slavery. It is "immoral" to people who think everyone should be treated equally as human beings. People who don't believe that now, and didn't in the past are wrong. End of story.

Jolt_counter119

We are in disagreement then. I think your idea of what is moral or not is absurd and hypocritical considering such a thing as life-imprisonment probably exists in your country.

How is imprisonment slavery? No one wants prisoners, they are dangerous and need to be separated from society. I'm gonna take a guess that your anceint jewish buddies enjoyed their slaves. Finally what makes you think I agree with my countries current Prison system?

Basically, imprisoning someone is to keep society safe and ensure that dangerous people can't do more harm, while your "slavery" is taking advantage of peoples poor sitiuation for your own gain.

Because the slavery described in the Torah has absolutely no similarity with the modern-day concept of slavery besides the name. If anything, it was more like indentured servitude.

Your "owner" did not own you for life. Heck, he didn't even own you for a decade. Once again, there are TWO instances where someone becomes a slaves, and neither involves being kidnapped or taken from your family against your will.

As for someone being poor? The Torah specifically states that one must feed another person who is poor even if he's a stranger. Therefore, what need is there to steal? NONE, except for greed.

"When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger." - Leviticus 23:22

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

The bible could have simply left it at: "If you stole, you must pay your debt" Instead it allowed slavery as possible options. It doesn tmatter if its regulated or conditional, its a pretty basic aspect of human morality that it was not right about. It doesn't matter *today* if it was acceptable back then - that still doesn't make it right. "Many other countries had slaves in past" is not a valid excuse as it still doesn't make it right.

At best, your argument only concedes to the fact that the bible is outdated. Not all of it, of course. The one about slavery *is now* wrong....but not the one about homosexuality?

th3warr1or

You don't seem to understand this. The money HAS to come from somewhere. The dude who stole has no money to pay the debt. Who's going cover it? The state? The crown? The other people?

The thief has to pay it. Last time i checked, we seem to be able to handle this issue quite well in modern days without resorting to slavery.

"It was different back then" doesn't mean it was ever correct.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

By no means am I saying it was right, but I would hardly call it slavery.

XaosII

So again, the bible seemed to have gotten a rather fundamental aspect of human morality incorrect. But not homosexuality?

You do not understand, the word "slavery" does not mean in ancient Israel what it means today. You are arguing semenatics.

Atheists understand the Bible more than hardcore CHristians.

Also, without reading your post, I know what youre talking about already.

Wh y do you think Religion is beginning to finally die?

Imo, it should have died back in the 20th century.

Bible should have one page that says, "Don't be an c*nt Lol.

The thief has to pay it. Last time i checked, we seem to be able to handle this issue quite well in modern days without resorting to slavery.

"It was different back then" doesn't mean it was ever correct.

XaosII

You missed the point entirely. If the thief can pay, he pays. He does not become a slave. He ONLY becomes a slave when he cannot pay. There is an "IF" there.

1) You steal.

2) You pay.

Can't pay? Tough luck, don't steal. You become a slave for 7 years in order to pay for it.
Can pay? PAY. Done.

You say "it was different back then" doesn't mean it was correct? It was different back then means you can't even use modern understanding of slavery to comment on slavery then.

That's like saying "Adam knew Eve," doesn't mean they ever had sex, even though the word "knew" meant something different back then. Beyond the terminology, there is no similarity between slavery as understood today by modern man and slavery back then. NONE.

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

We are in disagreement then. I think your idea of what is moral or not is absurd and hypocritical considering such a thing as life-imprisonment probably exists in your country.

th3warr1or

How is imprisonment slavery? No one wants prisoners, they are dangerous and need to be separated from society. I'm gonna take a guess that your anceint jewish buddies enjoyed their slaves. Finally what makes you think I agree with my countries current Prison system?

Basically, imprisoning someone is to keep society safe and ensure that dangerous people can't do more harm, while your "slavery" is taking advantage of peoples poor sitiuation for your own gain.

Because the slavery described in the Torah has absolutely no similarity with the modern-day concept of slavery besides the name. If anything, it was more like indentured servitude.

Your "owner" did not own you for life. Heck, he didn't even own you for a decade. Once again, there are TWO instances where someone becomes a slaves, and neither involves being kidnapped or taken from your family against your will.

As for someone being poor? The Torah specifically states that one must feed another person who is poor even if he's a stranger. Therefore, what need is there to steal? NONE, except for greed.

"When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger." - Leviticus 23:22

Point 1: Who cares? indentured servitude is just limited slavery

point 2: It doesn't matter how someone becomes a slave and for whatever reason, slaver is slaver

point 3: So stupid I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because of how silly your view on reality is.

Point 1: Who cares? indentured servitude is just limited slavery

point 2: It doesn't matter how someone becomes a slave and for whatever reason, slaver is slaver

point 3: So stupid I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because of how silly your view on reality is.

Jolt_counter119

Ad hominem. :lol:

I'm not the one here thinking my opinion is fact, and having a hypocritical ethnocentric view on "reality."

You do not understand, the word "slavery" does not mean in ancient Israel what it means today. You are arguing semenatics.

ShadowMoses900

"No, no, no.... its more like humane servitude" Well, that euphamism makes it all the better now! No, i dont think you understand. Im not talking that its immoral when you own a person as piece of your property to beat them, starve them, treat them like dirt, etc.

Its immoral to own a person and be treated a piece of property, temporary or not. Pretty much every modern country believes this as well, which is why any form, even your euphemistic bible "servitude," is not allowed. So, no, this isnt an argument of semantics because the definition of modern slavery and biblical slavery are the EXACT SAME. The difference is that biblical slavery happens to tell you to treat your property a little nicer.

Atheists understand the Bible more than hardcore CHristians.

Also, without reading your post, I know what youre talking about already.

Wh y do you think Religion is beginning to finally die?

Imo, it should have died back in the 20th century.

Bible should have one page that says, "Don't be an c*nt Lol.

Kocelot

Religion isn't dying nor should it. Your statement is no different than the religious fundamentalists that you so despise that say things like "only my religion is right, all science should be destroyed". It's the same closed minded and arrogant thinking.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

The thief has to pay it. Last time i checked, we seem to be able to handle this issue quite well in modern days without resorting to slavery.

"It was different back then" doesn't mean it was ever correct.

th3warr1or

You missed the point entirely. If the thief can pay, he pays. He does not become a slave. He ONLY becomes a slave when he cannot pay. There is an "IF" there.

1) You steal.

2) You pay.

Can't pay? Tough luck, don't steal. You become a slave for 7 years in order to pay for it.
Can pay? PAY. Done.

If he can pay, then he pays, if he can't then he can't, his life is punishment enough, I don't believe people who are too poor to eat that steal should be enslaved, imprisoned, or punished if they can't even afford the punishment.

you're not supposed to follow what the bible says are you?

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

The thief has to pay it. Last time i checked, we seem to be able to handle this issue quite well in modern days without resorting to slavery.

"It was different back then" doesn't mean it was ever correct.

Jolt_counter119

You missed the point entirely. If the thief can pay, he pays. He does not become a slave. He ONLY becomes a slave when he cannot pay. There is an "IF" there.

1) You steal.

2) You pay.

Can't pay? Tough luck, don't steal. You become a slave for 7 years in order to pay for it.
Can pay? PAY. Done.

If he can pay, then he pays, if he can't then he can't, his life is punishment enough, I don't believe people who are too poor to eat that steal should be enslaved, imprisoned, or punished if they can't even afford the punishment.

People don't steal because of hunger because someone who is hungry can just ask for food and someone who can give it is obligated to give it.

If you're hungry, you walk over to the guy who has a crapload of money, and tell him you need food. Doesn't matter if he knows you or not, he HAS to give it.

What excuse is there for theft now?

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

Point 1: Who cares? indentured servitude is just limited slavery

point 2: It doesn't matter how someone becomes a slave and for whatever reason, slaver is slaver

point 3: So stupid I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because of how silly your view on reality is.

th3warr1or

Ad hominem. :lol:

I'm not the one here thinking my opinion is fact, and having a hypocritical ethnocentric view on "reality."

Yes, because a book said you should give a starving man food, everyone is going to give starving men food, therefore if someone steals then they must be greedy. I didn't say you're stupid, your argument is though.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

You do not understand, the word "slavery" does not mean in ancient Israel what it means today. You are arguing semenatics.

XaosII

"No, no, no.... its more like humane servitude" Well, that euphamism makes it all the better now! No, i dont think you understand. Im not talking that its immoral when you own a person as piece of your property to beat them, starve them, treat them like dirt, etc.

Its immoral to own a person and be treated a piece of property, temporary or not. Pretty much every modern country believes this as well, which is why any form, even your euphemistic bible "servitude," is not allowed. So, no, this isnt an argument of semantics because the definition of modern slavery and biblical slavery are the EXACT SAME. The difference is that biblical slavery happens to tell you to treat your property a little nicer.

You seem uneducated on the history of the Jews. Perhaps you should learn more about it first before you try to talk about it.

They were hardly seen as property, the person who "owned" them (that they were indebted to) was responsible for their health and well being, they had to feed them and care for them and give them a place to stay, this goes for their family as well. Slavery is not the right word to describe it.

And no they are not the exact same, they are completely different. What the Israelites did was nothing like what America did to Africans.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

Point 1: Who cares? indentured servitude is just limited slavery

point 2: It doesn't matter how someone becomes a slave and for whatever reason, slaver is slaver

point 3: So stupid I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because of how silly your view on reality is.

Jolt_counter119

Ad hominem. :lol:

I'm not the one here thinking my opinion is fact, and having a hypocritical ethnocentric view on "reality."

Yes, because a book said you should give a starving man food, everyone is going to give starving men food, therefore if someone steals then they must be greedy. I didn't say you're stupid, your argument is though.

"because a book said you should give a starving man food, everyone is going to give starving men food."

Um, back then? Yes.

You missed the point entirely. If the thief can pay, he pays. He does not become a slave. He ONLY becomes a slave when he cannot pay. There is an "IF" there.

1) You steal.

2) You pay.

Can't pay? Tough luck, don't steal. You become a slave for 7 years in order to pay for it.
Can pay? PAY. Done.

You say "it was different back then" doesn't mean it was correct? It was different back then means you can't even use modern understanding of slavery to comment on slavery then.

That's like saying "Adam knew Eve," doesn't mean they ever had sex, even though the word "knew" meant something different back then. Beyond the terminology, there is no similarity between slavery as understood today by modern man and slavery back then. NONE.

th3warr1or

How does this change what i said? Last time i checked, we seem to be able to handle this situation quite well without resorting to slavery - that inclsdes even when the thief cant pay. We don't just resort to slavery.

Your argument is that the concept of owning someone like property ("slavery" as used in the bible) is totally different than the concept of owning someone like property ("slavery" as used today).

Amazing.

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

Ad hominem. :lol:

I'm not the one here thinking my opinion is fact, and having a hypocritical ethnocentric view on "reality."

th3warr1or

Yes, because a book said you should give a starving man food, everyone is going to give starving men food, therefore if someone steals then they must be greedy. I didn't say you're stupid, your argument is though.

"because a book said you should give a starving man food, everyone is going to give starving men food."

Um, back then? Yes.

Oh well, okay then, indentured servitude "slavery" back then was okay. You have enlightened me with your knowledge of how people in history acted, and how nobody starved to death.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

You missed the point entirely. If the thief can pay, he pays. He does not become a slave. He ONLY becomes a slave when he cannot pay. There is an "IF" there.

1) You steal.

2) You pay.

Can't pay? Tough luck, don't steal. You become a slave for 7 years in order to pay for it.
Can pay? PAY. Done.

You say "it was different back then" doesn't mean it was correct? It was different back then means you can't even use modern understanding of slavery to comment on slavery then.

That's like saying "Adam knew Eve," doesn't mean they ever had sex, even though the word "knew" meant something different back then. Beyond the terminology, there is no similarity between slavery as understood today by modern man and slavery back then. NONE.

XaosII

How does this change what i said? Last time i checked, we seem to be able to handle this situation quite well without resorting to slavery - that inclsdes even when the thief cant pay. We don't just resort to slavery.

Your argument is that the concept of owning someone like property ("slavery" as used in the bible) is totally different than the concept of owning someone like property ("slavery" as used today).

Amazing.

Handles it quite well? That's your opinion, which you're entitled to, but I disagree. If someone stole my things and pawned them, and he can't pay back, I have to suck it up and be like "tough luck for me?"

Make the victim have to pay for the criminal's actions? What absurdity is this?

you're not supposed to follow what the bible says are you?

GrayF0X786

No one follows everything, it would be a bad world if we did. You're a Muslim, do you beat women to death for going outside without a male escort or without a burka? You better not.

[QUOTE="Kocelot"]

Atheists understand the Bible more than hardcore CHristians.

Also, without reading your post, I know what youre talking about already.

Wh y do you think Religion is beginning to finally die?

Imo, it should have died back in the 20th century.

Bible should have one page that says, "Don't be an c*nt Lol.

ShadowMoses900

Religion isn't dying nor should it. Your statement is no different than the religious fundamentalists that you so despise that say things like "only my religion is right, all science should be destroyed". It's the same closed minded and arrogant thinking.

So you dont agree that religion is a throw back to when humanity couldnt explain the sun?

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

Yes, because a book said you should give a starving man food, everyone is going to give starving men food, therefore if someone steals then they must be greedy. I didn't say you're stupid, your argument is though.

Jolt_counter119

"because a book said you should give a starving man food, everyone is going to give starving men food."

Um, back then? Yes.

Oh well, okay then, indentured servitude "slavery" back then was okay. You have enlightened me with your knowledge of how people in history acted, and how nobody starved to death.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="Kocelot"]

Atheists understand the Bible more than hardcore CHristians.

Also, without reading your post, I know what youre talking about already.

Wh y do you think Religion is beginning to finally die?

Imo, it should have died back in the 20th century.

Bible should have one page that says, "Don't be an c*nt Lol.

tenaka2

Religion isn't dying nor should it. Your statement is no different than the religious fundamentalists that you so despise that say things like "only my religion is right, all science should be destroyed". It's the same closed minded and arrogant thinking.

So you dont agree that religion is a throw back to when humanity couldnt explain the sun?

God and science are not enemies. Only if your a fundamentalist do you have a problem with it.

Religion actually formed the basis of civilization, and it continues to inspire people today. While some have done bad with it, for the most part, it's been a force of good.

You seem uneducated on the history of the Jews. Perhaps you should learn more about it first before you try to talk about it.

They were hardly seen as property, the person who "owned" them (that they were indebted to) was responsible for their health and well being, they had to feed them and care for them and give them a place to stay, this goes for their family as well. Slavery is not the right word to describe it.

And no they are not the exact same, they are completely different. What the Israelites did was nothing like what America did to Africans.

ShadowMoses900

Seriously? That is your argument? That because you were told to treat your property nicer that it does not count as slavery? "Slavery" doesnt mean what it actually means? "Owned" doesn't mean what it actually means? "Slave" doesnt mean what it actually means?

You seem uneducated on the history of the Jews. Perhaps you should learn more about it first before you try to talk about it.

They were hardly seen as property, the person who "owned" them (that they were indebted to) was responsible for their health and well being, they had to feed them and care for them and give them a place to stay, this goes for their family as well. Slavery is not the right word to describe it.

And no they are not the exact same, they are completely different. What the Israelites did was nothing like what America did to Africans.

ShadowMoses900

The problem with indentured servidtude is that while you did have to ensure the safety of your workers you didn't "really" have to. As long as they stayed alive there wasn't much incentive not to beat and treat workers as slaves. If your rights depend on the person who owns your labor, then don't expect many.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

You seem uneducated on the history of the Jews. Perhaps you should learn more about it first before you try to talk about it.

They were hardly seen as property, the person who "owned" them (that they were indebted to) was responsible for their health and well being, they had to feed them and care for them and give them a place to stay, this goes for their family as well. Slavery is not the right word to describe it.

And no they are not the exact same, they are completely different. What the Israelites did was nothing like what America did to Africans.

Jolt_counter119

The problem with indentured servidtude is that while you did have to ensure the safety of your workers you didn't "really" have to. As long as they stayed alive there wasn't much incentive not to beat and treat workers as slaves. If your rights depend on the person who owns your labor, then don't expect many.

Maybe with other cultures. Certainly not the Jews.

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

"because a book said you should give a starving man food, everyone is going to give starving men food."

Um, back then? Yes.

th3warr1or

Oh well, okay then, indentured servitude "slavery" back then was okay. You have enlightened me with your knowledge of how people in history acted, and how nobody starved to death.

Man I am just so stupid, you are right let me rephrase. "...and how no Isrealites who followed the Torah starved to death"

Handles it quite well? That's your opinion, which you're entitled to, but I disagree. If someone stole my things and pawned them, and he can't pay back, I have to suck it up and be like "tough luck for me?"

Make the victim have to pay for the criminal's actions? What absurdity is this?

th3warr1or

Yeah, because no one has ever been taken to court for stealing.

Or are you absurdly suggesting that he should become your slave, until he pays you back double, as long as you give him a pillow?

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

You seem uneducated on the history of the Jews. Perhaps you should learn more about it first before you try to talk about it.

They were hardly seen as property, the person who "owned" them (that they were indebted to) was responsible for their health and well being, they had to feed them and care for them and give them a place to stay, this goes for their family as well. Slavery is not the right word to describe it.

And no they are not the exact same, they are completely different. What the Israelites did was nothing like what America did to Africans.

XaosII

Seriously? That is your argument? That because you were told to treat your property nicer that it does not count as slavery? "Slavery" doesnt mean what it actually means? "Owned" doesn't mean what it actually means? "Slave" doesnt mean what it actually means?

For the last time, you are uneducated on Jewish culture. You should learn about the ancient customs and understand the time period. Property implies that it is yours to do with as you wish, and yours to keep and own for as long as you wish. Neither of those things were practiced in ancient Israel.

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

You seem uneducated on the history of the Jews. Perhaps you should learn more about it first before you try to talk about it.

They were hardly seen as property, the person who "owned" them (that they were indebted to) was responsible for their health and well being, they had to feed them and care for them and give them a place to stay, this goes for their family as well. Slavery is not the right word to describe it.

And no they are not the exact same, they are completely different. What the Israelites did was nothing like what America did to Africans.

th3warr1or

The problem with indentured servidtude is that while you did have to ensure the safety of your workers you didn't "really" have to. As long as they stayed alive there wasn't much incentive not to beat and treat workers as slaves. If your rights depend on the person who owns your labor, then don't expect many.

Maybe with other cultures. Certainly not the Jews.

Of course not. Not the Jews!!!

Of course not. Not the Jews!!!

Jolt_counter119

Man I am just so stupid, you are right let me rephrase. "...and how no Isrealites who followed the Torah starved to death"

Jolt_counter119

There were obviously some who did. Maybe in the desert. Maybe in a wilderness. Maybe the whole community was starving. But for the most part, no. But you're not going to accept that as an answer are you?

Yeah, because no one has ever been taken to court for stealing.

Or are you absurdly suggesting that he should become your slave, until he pays you back double, as long as you give him a pillow?

XaosII

He lives in your house, eats your food, drinks your wine.

You know what I find absurd? Not the fact that you're against slavery. That's actually fine with me. But the fact that someone can be put in life imprisonment (or sentenced to death), and you think 7 years of servitude is suddenly this huge violation of human rights.

He lives in your house, eats your food, drinks your wine.

th3warr1or

Just because a book told you to treat your slaves nicer than the typical conditions of other slaves during that time period, really doesn't change the fact that the dude is still your slave. Your slave. Slavery

"Slavery: It's a good thing!" - The Torah

As much as you want to make euphemisms and excuses for justifying how it *was* acceptable back then - it simply not acceptable today. Period. And so they got this "servitude" issue wrong in the long run. But not the homosexual thing....because?

I never brought up imprisonment.

The quotes are getting ridiculous but for the point about mistreated slaves

Assuming that every single slave owner didn't mistreat their slaves would be hard to prove, and even if it was a small portion it still makes it wrong.

about about starving

It doesn't really matter if people starved to deat or not (just silly to assume people who stole only stole for greed), stealing is not a good excuse for making someone ridiculously poor feel forced to offer themselves as slaves for your own gain for 7 years.

about prison laws

Two different punishments. People are given life sentences for things that would harm society a great deal, thus need to be removed entirely. Petty theft will not get you anywhere near 7 years.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

He lives in your house, eats your food, drinks your wine.

XaosII

Just because a book told you to treat your slaves nicer than the typical conditions of other slaves during that time period, really doesn't change the fact that the dude is still your slave. Your slave. Slavery

"Slavery: It's a good thing!" - The Torah

As much as you want to make euphemisms and excuses for justifying how it *was* acceptable back then - it simply not acceptable today. Period. And so they got this "servitude" issue wrong in the long run. But not the homosexual thing....because?

I never brought up imprisonment.

Long run? No. Slavery has been legal and accepted in society for far, far, far longer than it hasn't... which is like what, 200 years?

Secondly. Where in the Torah says that one MUST have to have a slave? It doesn't. The Torah never said slavery was a good thing that had to be practiced by everyone in order for that person to be considered good.

It sets conventions for slavery, because slavery was practiced then, and even then it was nothing like the slavery practiced in surrounding regions, or even the slavery practiced millennia later. Realistically speaking, it would have been practiced even if the Torah hadn't mentioned it. And no, the Torah isn't going to forbid slavery because if it was written by a man, then nobody is going to follow it anyway. If it was written by G-d, then you've got no business questioning it. Either way, slavery is permitted, not mandatory.

If you don't like that, well good for you that it's not practiced today, nobody said you needed to have a slave, and no Jew alive today has a slave, so I don't see the problem.

Assuming that every single slave owner didn't mistreat their slaves would be hard to prove, and even if it was a small portion it still makes it wrong.

Jolt_counter119

Agreed.

It doesn't really matter if people starved to deat or not (just silly to assume people who stole only stole for greed), stealing is not a good excuse for making someone ridiculously poor feel forced to offer themselves as slaves for your own gain for 7 years.

Jolt_counter119

Yes, but like I said, if you were ridiculously poor, someone who isn't was [by the Torah] mandated to provide you with harvest/grain (i.e., food) for as long as you needed.

Two different punishments. People are given life sentences for things that would harm society a great deal, thus need to be removed entirely. Petty theft will not get you anywhere near 7 years.

Jolt_counter119

7 years was the maximum someone could be a slave for (unless he chose otherwise). It's not ALWAYS 7 years. 7 years was the MAXMIMUM sentence. By doing this, they're actually making a guy productive as opposed to sitting in a stone cell which does absolutely nothing for him or the guy he stole from.

The courts would sentence his servitude accordingly. If someone stole a loaf of bread, its unlikely they would even make him a slave for the simple reason that he was supposed to be given food.

On the other hand, if you did armed-robbery today, you'd be going away for a LOT longer than 7years.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Religion isn't dying nor should it. Your statement is no different than the religious fundamentalists that you so despise that say things like "only my religion is right, all science should be destroyed". It's the same closed minded and arrogant thinking.

ShadowMoses900

So you dont agree that religion is a throw back to when humanity couldnt explain the sun?

God and science are not enemies. Only if your a fundamentalist do you have a problem with it.

Religion actually formed the basis of civilization, and it continues to inspire people today. While some have done bad with it, for the most part, it's been a force of good.

science and god are not enemies, but science and religion are because they are two paths to the same questions, and only one of them has been shown to work

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

So you dont agree that religion is a throw back to when humanity couldnt explain the sun?

wis3boi

God and science are not enemies. Only if your a fundamentalist do you have a problem with it.

Religion actually formed the basis of civilization, and it continues to inspire people today. While some have done bad with it, for the most part, it's been a force of good.

science and god are not enemies, but science and religion are because they are two paths to the same questions, and only one of them has been shown to work

I disagree, nothing in my religious views conflict with science. I believe in evolution and everything. It's only religious fundamentalism that is the issue. Religion has pushed society forward in many ways, it was in fact religion that inspired the early scientific discoveries.

The more I learn about science, the more I learn about God.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Religion isn't dying nor should it. Your statement is no different than the religious fundamentalists that you so despise that say things like "only my religion is right, all science should be destroyed". It's the same closed minded and arrogant thinking.

ShadowMoses900

So you dont agree that religion is a throw back to when humanity couldnt explain the sun?

God and science are not enemies. Only if your a fundamentalist do you have a problem with it.

Religion actually formed the basis of civilization, and it continues to inspire people today. While some have done bad with it, for the most part, it's been a force of good.

Burning people alive is never a force for good.