A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
I don’t even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
Yes. It’s literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others
No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless you’re WestJet).
Ah, I see. “Seperate but equal”.
Just “equal”.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
I did specify “large corporation” in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Yep, that fits.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era we’re talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
I’ll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And I’ll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. “Slavery”, as it’s used today, is technically “chattel slavery”, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word “slavery” has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isn’t. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. “Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Well, this one clearly does, as he’s trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It’s close enough.
No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since you’re agruing for thr same thing, I guess it’s not so strange.
Involuntary servitude
Involuntary servitude
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who weren’t freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries weren’t to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
“Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
There’s a saying that when democracy doesn’t favour conservatives, they don’t turn from conservatism, they’ll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they don’t turn of the bible, instead they’ll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and behold…
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It’s close enough.
Laws were in place to prevent abuse. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Even today (with our laws and ways to monitor and report things) there’s abuse of literally every kind in every facet of society.
Your premise assumes that slaves in ancient Israel were regularly abused and their masters were harsh and uncaring. Historical accounts say otherwise.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
It’s not like it comes with more pay like a job. It’s basically just more work.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits.
Because that’s what you’re choosing to hear. You’re ignoring all the other things I’ve said.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No.
Obviously not. Just as a prisoner can’t just go find a new prison or a criminal go find a more favourable judge. Involuntary servitude was a form of judicial punishment or a result of war.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
and the bible supports it.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy. To the point that it’s considered a core teaching of Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:15 - “See that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others.”
Treat everyone well
Exodus 20:10 - “but the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your foreign resident who is inside your settlements.”
Workers/slaves should not be overworked.
Exodus 21:12 - “Anyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death.”
Exodus 21:16 - “If anyone kidnaps a man and sells him or is caught holding him, he must be put to death.”
Exodus 21:26,27 - “If a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.”
Physical abuse resulted in the slave being released.
instead they’ll start saying slavery was actually good.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
You really should listen to Dan Carlin’s podcasts. (Even if it’s not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)
I really don’t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
It’s not like it comes with more pay like a job. It’s basically just more work.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
Because that’s what you’re choosing to hear. You’re ignoring all the other things I’ve said.
I’m hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods you’re saying, yes.
You’re also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
I didn’t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didn’t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didn’t say that for child murder.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then it’s the bible’s core message, but when something doesn’t look to good for it, then it’s just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you haven’t noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
I really don’t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Edit: I’m still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlin’s podcast “religious” and his content “whitewashing”.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
If you’re referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree that’s wrong.
I didn’t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
It didn’t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her “children” are the terrible things she does.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then it’s the bible’s core message, but when something doesn’t look to good for it, then it’s just recorded in it, and also out of context.
No. It’s a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
Huh, so this wasn’t a quote used by you?
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Sure bud, I’ll rephrase. I really don’t care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.
If you’re referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree that’s wrong.
Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.
Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.
Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.
No. It’s a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since it’s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.
Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.
Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.
All of this is true. Hence why the “children” (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.
Sure bud, I’ll rephrase. I really don’t care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.
Ya, this here sums up this entire discussion quite nicely. You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say. So much so that you immediately attribute everything I say to ignorance and religious bias.
If you knew who Dan Carlin is, if you were familiar with his content, and, most especially, if you had listened to the Humane Resources episode, you would understand how utterly ridiculous your statements are.
Everything I have said has been met with either ignoring it, denial, or flat out ignorance. The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a “religious podcast” and still maintain that it “whitewashes” anything, all without even looking up the podcast (which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history) is rich and entirely telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.
I respect your opinions (I really do), but I can’t continue talking to you as you’re unwilling to even entertain the idea of listening to the “other side”.
All of this is true. Hence why the “children” (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.
Of course.
And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?
You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say.
I tend to do that when the person I’m arguing against supports such despicable things.
The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a “religious podcast” and still maintain that it “whitewashes” anything, all without even looking up the podcast
I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.
telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.
Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?
(which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history)
Are you his publicist or something? You’re trying really hard so sell his stuff.
It seems your forgot to answer this:
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since it’s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
And then of course there’s all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.
And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?
The only time that’s mentioned is once in Leviticus, and was specific to the ancient Israelites under the Mosaic law. Other things that were punishable by death were: adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, woman marrying and falsely claiming to be a virgin, sleeping with an engaged women, etc. At that time the term “Jew” was both cultural and religious, there was no difference. If you were a Jew (an Israelite) then you were under that law.
Without getting too much into it, the Bible says that Mosaic law is superceded by the Law Covenant at the time of Jesus’ death, and thus is no longer in affect.
The Bible further elaborates about how we should treat anyone.
Josiah 24:15 - “Now if it seems bad to you to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, whether the gods that your forefathers served on the other side of the River or the gods of the Amʹor·ites in whose land you are dwelling. But as for me and my household, we will serve Jehovah.”
If you don’t want to follow the Bible or serve Jehovah, you are free to do so, and no one can make you (according to the Bible itself, but obviously that hasn’t stopped things like the Crusades).
1 Peter 2:17 - “Honor men of all sorts”
Pretty cut and dry.
The reason I ignored this topic before is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion, which was “the Bible does not teach torture”. I haven’t even been advocating the Bible, only talking about that one topic. But like all people who either can’t admit being wrong, or are wilfully ignorant and obstinate, you completely disregarded everything I’ve said and keep going on about other things in the Bible.
I tend to do that when the person I’m arguing against supports such despicable things.
Ah, so if I said “everyone deserves respect” you would argue in favour of treating everyone terribly?
I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.
Like I said, if you knew his content from Hardcore History, any of it, you would understand how ridiculous your statement is. But just wait until you find out that some of the greatest minds regarded in science were Christian and believed in God.
Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?
Are you genuinely still asserting that I ever said “slavery was a good thing”? At this point you’re either just a troll or just really thick.
Are you his publicist or something? You’re trying really hard so sell his stuff.
No. I suggested his stuff once, and then just kept laughing (not mockingly, I genuinely found it funny) at how absurd your attempts to discredit Hardcore History is, based purely on your bias towards me.
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
And I’m pretty sure no one ever wants to be poor in the first place. But if wishes were horses…
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude?
The sad thing is that you might actually think I believe that, despite every rational attempt at genuine dialogue on my part. Makes me wonder if you even read everything that I wrote, and have just been assuming.
And then of course there’s all the homophobia in the bible
The Bible says homosexuality is displeasing to God because it’s not how he intended romantic relationships to be. But it also says sex (of any kind) outside of marriage is also not ok. The big factor that people miss is that the Bible says to “hate what is bad”, it never says “hate who is bad”. You can hate the things someone does, but you should always treat them with respect, and even to love them as your neighbour.
But all of this is really relevant to the discussion about slavery in the Bible, right? It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you can’t argue the topic about slavery in the Bible on its own merit, is it?
Surely you wouldn’t try to discredit the source material in order to undermine your opponents arguments. Not you, never.
Anyways, I’m done with this discussion. You can reply if you like. I’ll read it, but I won’t reply if you keep misrepresenting what I’ve said and try to put words in my mouth. If you don’t, then I’m willing to continue.
But otherwise I’ll say nice chatting with you, and take care.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I don’t doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Because you think “slavery” means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
No, it’s all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless you’re WestJet).
Just “equal”.
I did specify “large corporation” in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era we’re talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
And I’ll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. “Slavery”, as it’s used today, is technically “chattel slavery”, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word “slavery” has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isn’t. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. “Slaves” under voluntary servitude were even able to “seek a new master”. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
Well, this one clearly does, as he’s trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. It’s close enough.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since you’re agruing for thr same thing, I guess it’s not so strange.
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who weren’t freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries weren’t to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
There’s a saying that when democracy doesn’t favour conservatives, they don’t turn from conservatism, they’ll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they don’t turn of the bible, instead they’ll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and behold…
And of course the rampant homophobia.
You really should listen to Dan Carlin’s podcasts. (Even if it’s not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-68-blitz-human-resources/
Laws were in place to prevent abuse. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Even today (with our laws and ways to monitor and report things) there’s abuse of literally every kind in every facet of society.
Your premise assumes that slaves in ancient Israel were regularly abused and their masters were harsh and uncaring. Historical accounts say otherwise.
It’s not like it comes with more pay like a job. It’s basically just more work.
Because that’s what you’re choosing to hear. You’re ignoring all the other things I’ve said.
Obviously not. Just as a prisoner can’t just go find a new prison or a criminal go find a more favourable judge. Involuntary servitude was a form of judicial punishment or a result of war.
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy. To the point that it’s considered a core teaching of Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:15 - “See that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others.”
Treat everyone well
Exodus 20:10 - “but the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your foreign resident who is inside your settlements.”
Workers/slaves should not be overworked.
Exodus 21:12 - “Anyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death.”
Exodus 21:16 - “If anyone kidnaps a man and sells him or is caught holding him, he must be put to death.”
Exodus 21:26,27 - “If a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.”
Physical abuse resulted in the slave being released.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
I really don’t care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
I’m hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods you’re saying, yes.
You’re also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
I didn’t say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didn’t say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didn’t say that for child murder.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then it’s the bible’s core message, but when something doesn’t look to good for it, then it’s just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you haven’t noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
Huh, so this wasn’t a quote used by you?
“In fact, there were cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.”
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Edit: I’m still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlin’s podcast “religious” and his content “whitewashing”.
If you’re referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree that’s wrong.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her “children” are the terrible things she does.
No. It’s a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
Sure bud, I’ll rephrase. I really don’t care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.
Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.
Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.
Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.
Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.
And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since it’s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
All of this is true. Hence why the “children” (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.
Ya, this here sums up this entire discussion quite nicely. You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say. So much so that you immediately attribute everything I say to ignorance and religious bias.
If you knew who Dan Carlin is, if you were familiar with his content, and, most especially, if you had listened to the Humane Resources episode, you would understand how utterly ridiculous your statements are.
Everything I have said has been met with either ignoring it, denial, or flat out ignorance. The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a “religious podcast” and still maintain that it “whitewashes” anything, all without even looking up the podcast (which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history) is rich and entirely telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.
I respect your opinions (I really do), but I can’t continue talking to you as you’re unwilling to even entertain the idea of listening to the “other side”.
Of course.
And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?
I tend to do that when the person I’m arguing against supports such despicable things.
I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.
Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?
Are you his publicist or something? You’re trying really hard so sell his stuff.
It seems your forgot to answer this:
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since it’s preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
And then of course there’s all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.
The only time that’s mentioned is once in Leviticus, and was specific to the ancient Israelites under the Mosaic law. Other things that were punishable by death were: adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, woman marrying and falsely claiming to be a virgin, sleeping with an engaged women, etc. At that time the term “Jew” was both cultural and religious, there was no difference. If you were a Jew (an Israelite) then you were under that law.
Without getting too much into it, the Bible says that Mosaic law is superceded by the Law Covenant at the time of Jesus’ death, and thus is no longer in affect.
The Bible further elaborates about how we should treat anyone.
Josiah 24:15 - “Now if it seems bad to you to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve, whether the gods that your forefathers served on the other side of the River or the gods of the Amʹor·ites in whose land you are dwelling. But as for me and my household, we will serve Jehovah.”
If you don’t want to follow the Bible or serve Jehovah, you are free to do so, and no one can make you (according to the Bible itself, but obviously that hasn’t stopped things like the Crusades).
1 Peter 2:17 - “Honor men of all sorts”
Pretty cut and dry.
The reason I ignored this topic before is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion, which was “the Bible does not teach torture”. I haven’t even been advocating the Bible, only talking about that one topic. But like all people who either can’t admit being wrong, or are wilfully ignorant and obstinate, you completely disregarded everything I’ve said and keep going on about other things in the Bible.
Ah, so if I said “everyone deserves respect” you would argue in favour of treating everyone terribly?
Like I said, if you knew his content from Hardcore History, any of it, you would understand how ridiculous your statement is. But just wait until you find out that some of the greatest minds regarded in science were Christian and believed in God.
Are you genuinely still asserting that I ever said “slavery was a good thing”? At this point you’re either just a troll or just really thick.
No. I suggested his stuff once, and then just kept laughing (not mockingly, I genuinely found it funny) at how absurd your attempts to discredit Hardcore History is, based purely on your bias towards me.
And I’m pretty sure no one ever wants to be poor in the first place. But if wishes were horses…
The sad thing is that you might actually think I believe that, despite every rational attempt at genuine dialogue on my part. Makes me wonder if you even read everything that I wrote, and have just been assuming.
The Bible says homosexuality is displeasing to God because it’s not how he intended romantic relationships to be. But it also says sex (of any kind) outside of marriage is also not ok. The big factor that people miss is that the Bible says to “hate what is bad”, it never says “hate who is bad”. You can hate the things someone does, but you should always treat them with respect, and even to love them as your neighbour.
But all of this is really relevant to the discussion about slavery in the Bible, right? It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you can’t argue the topic about slavery in the Bible on its own merit, is it?
Surely you wouldn’t try to discredit the source material in order to undermine your opponents arguments. Not you, never.
Anyways, I’m done with this discussion. You can reply if you like. I’ll read it, but I won’t reply if you keep misrepresenting what I’ve said and try to put words in my mouth. If you don’t, then I’m willing to continue.
But otherwise I’ll say nice chatting with you, and take care.