My Daisy Chain Challenge

[EternalDragon]

Liar.

If 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 bible says "servant". Like indentured servant? So no, I am not lying.

 

[EternalDragon]

Too bad God didnt have the moral authority with the Israelites to abolish slavery.

Not at all what you think it is. Most bond servants were servants of their own volition. They were paid a wage and taken care of. Sort of like a butler who lives in a mansion.

These people in those times were so much in debt they were left to selling themselves as servants in households. This is a loan. In six years the loan is paid off, and they are set free. Bondservants who did this made a wage, had their debt covered, had a home to stay in, on-the-job training, and did it for only six years. This almost sounds better than college, which doesn't cover debt and you have to pay for it!

This is not a forced agreement either. The bondservants enter into service on their own accord. In the same respect, a foreigner can also sell themselves into servitude.

 

[kellhus]

Not at all what you think it is. Most bond servants were servants of their own volition. They were paid a wage and taken care of. Sort of like a butler who lives in a mansion.

These people in those times were so much in debt they were left to selling themselves as servants in households. This is a loan. In six years the loan is paid off, and they are set free. Bondservants who did this made a wage, had their debt covered, had a home to stay in, on-the-job training, and did it for only six years. This almost sounds better than college, which doesn't cover debt and you have to pay for it!

This is not a forced agreement either. The bondservants enter into service on their own accord. In the same respect, a foreigner can also sell themselves into servitude.

What a load of BS.

Well, never seen slavery apologetics before. Guess all types make their way to CF. Here's some more while we're at it.

Racism Talk At CPAC Derailed When Attendee Says Slaves Should Have Been Grateful - YouTube

 

[Subduction Zone]

My bible says "servant". Like indentured servant? So no, I am not lying.

Your Bible had dishonest translators.

If a man has to work for someone else, for no pay, for his entire life what would you call him?

Oh, and if he disobeys his "employer" can beat him as badly as he wants to, as long as he does not die within a day or two that is alright. If the "servant" dies after three days it is clear that the servant was only malingering.

 

[HitchSlap]

What a load of BS.

Well, never seen slavery apologetics before. Guess all types make their way to CF. Here's some more while we're at it.


Not black slavery. Indentured servants. You are taking something Africans experienced in America and trying to squeeze it into the Bible.

Does the bible describe how much you can beat your "servant?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not black slavery. Indentured servants. You are taking something Africans experienced in America and trying to squeeze it into the Bible.

You don't even know your own Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please note, the supposed "indentured servant" status only applied to Hebrews. And the Bible even tells you how to get around that and make that person your own personal slave for the rest of his life. And not just the rest of his life, but the life of his children too.

The Bible supports slavery, not indentured servitude:

Slavery in the Bible

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm not explaining apologetics for slavery. Not in the least.

Good, because I'd hate to be in your position and have to defend this:

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

Nice god you worship, there.

 

[EternalDragon]

Does the bible describe how much you can beat your "servant?"

No, I don't believe so. It is describing how some slaves were treated not how to treat them.

My bible says "since the servant is his money." Not property.

The servant is in debt to pay it off, he sits around and refuses to do the work. So I guess you would just let him slack off? For the six years? You can't kick him out because you, the master, already paid off his debt. What are you going to do and is it your fault or the servants fault that he is in trouble?

Take a deep breath and clear your brain.

 

[kellhus]

No, I don't believe so. It is describing how some slaves were treated not how to treat them.

Man, your excuses are terrible. Just stop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I don't believe so. It is describing how some slaves were treated not how to treat them.

You really should read your Bible some day.

 

[EternalDragon]

You really should read your Bible some day.

You should really learn some Hebrew history.

 

[HitchSlap]

You should really learn some Hebrew history.

I did. You have not.

It's pathetic you don't know it as well the atheists here. Perhaps it's why we're atheists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should really learn some Hebrew history.

Our claims come from your Bible. Haven't you been checking out the links?

Your Bible supports slavery. It tells how to make a fellow Hebrew your slave for the rest of his life. It tells you how badly you can beat your slaves and not be punished for it.

Do you not believe us?

 

[Deadbolt]

So how exactly was this a "challenge"? It didn't actually address a position held by the scientific consensus. I know it makes some kind of sense to you, AV1, but when you argue about reality, you can't confine the basis of your argument to things that exist only in your subjective perspective.

You should bring up something more real.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how exactly was this a "challenge"?

Hopefully people will realize that the "we have evidence for evolution" argument is a very weak argument.

Okay, they have evidence -- but what they don't tell you is how much ... or, more appropriately, how little ... evidence they actually have.

It didn't actually address a position held by the scientific consensus.

Then you don't understand the challenge ... compliments of responders who are disingenuous and would rather argue it than answer it properly.

To address what you just said: I totally disagree.

If you're telling me that the position held by the scientific consensus is that they have enough evidence to reduce the ratio of evidence-to-time to 1:1, I say you either don't understand the challenge, or you're wrong.

Wouldn't it be nice if an honest scientist ... okay, a scientist ... would actually say NO and let it go at that?

My version of the Diogenes myth is that Diogenese was cursed to wander the earth with a lantern, looking for an honest scientist.

That means he still wanders the earth today.

I know it makes some kind of sense to you, AV1, but when you argue about reality, you can't confine the basis of your argument to things that exist only in your subjective perspective.

What is subjective about a 1:1 ratio of evidence-to-time?

You should bring up something more real.

It wouldn't matter.

If they have to ... if they really get desperate ... scientists will Arab phone my words in their favor to make it look like I'm wrong, or that I said the opposite of what I actually said.

 

[Delphiki]

Okay, they have evidence -- but what they don't tell you is how much ... or, more appropriately, how little ... evidence they actually have.

Whether you think it's a lot or a little, it's the only evidence that exists unless you can provide some evidence for an alternative theory. I won't be holding my breath.


On a side note, it's really difficult to visit this place as often as I used to. I end up a little more sad and disappointed in humanity each time because of threads like these. You see, I really do pity the internal turmoil you must face day to day, knowing that you're blatantly lying to yourself, knowing you're wrong. It just boggles my mind how powerful a mythology can be to instill a fear of an eternal hell in them to the point that they refuse to see their own hand in front of their face.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hopefully people will realize that the "we have evidence for evolution" argument is a very weak argument.

No, it isn't. Why would you make such a weak claim AV?

Okay, they have evidence -- but what they don't tell you is how much ... or, more appropriately, how little ... evidence they actually have.

Yes, we have. Okay, we have MOUNTAINS of evidence. We have so much evidence that you would have to be crazy to believe anything else.

Then you don't understand the challenge ... compliments of responders who are disingenuous and would rather argue it than answer it properly.

You would not know the proper answer if it struck you in the face. Literally.

To address what you just said: I totally disagree.

Yes, of course you do.

If you're telling me that the position held by the scientific consensus is that they have enough evidence to reduce the ratio of evidence-to-time to 1:1, I say you either don't understand the challenge, or you're wrong.

Of course we don't. That was a ridiculous request. We don't need to know what a suspected murderer had for breakfast 5 years ago to know if he committed a murder last week either. No jury would ever say "You don't know everything about the suspect therefore yo have to vote not guilty".

Wouldn't it be nice if an honest scientist ... okay, a scientist ... would actually say NO and let it go at that?[/quote

You are in no position to judge anyone's honesty at all. As long as you are dishonest to yourself you will never be able to judge if someone else is honest or not.

My version of the Diogenes myth is that Diogenese was cursed to wander the earth with a lantern, looking for an honest scientist.

And yet we can demonstrate why scientists have to be honest and how creationists lie continually and get away with it. Nor have you ever been able to demonstrate an untruthful scientist. Your so called myth only demonstrates your lack of honesty. Again.

That means he still wanders the earth today.

Only if the honest scientist he was looking for was a creation "scientist". Again, this has been explained to you. This has been demonstrated to you. You are not being honest.

What is subjective about a 1:1 ratio of evidence-to-time?

It wouldn't matter.

If they have to ... if they really get desperate ... scientists will Arab phone my words in their favor to make it look like I'm wrong, or that I said the opposite of what I actually said.

There is no need to "make you look wrong" AV. You do that yourself.

Perhaps you should be more concerned with making yourself look right. Perhaps you should try to be honest with yourself, for once.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, we have. Okay, we have MOUNTAINS of evidence. We have so much evidence that you would have to be crazy to believe anything else.

I'm not disputing the fact that you have MOUNTAINS of evidence.

In fact, in Post 15, I gave you one billion pieces of physical biological evidence on display, and still showed it was only 28.58%.

What I am disputing, is that your MOUNTAINS of evidence need to be on public display somewhere, pertain to physical biological evidence, and each piece occupy a separate year on the timeline -- or it fails this challenge, and our faith will move your MOUNTAINS into the sea.

 

[StormanNorman]

I'm not disputing the fact that you have MOUNTAINS of evidence.

In fact, in Post 15, I gave you one billion pieces of physical biological evidence on display, and still showed it was only 28.58%.

What I am disputing, is that your MOUNTAINS of evidence need to be on public display somewhere, pertain to physical biological evidence, and each piece occupy a separate year on the timeline -- or it fails this challenge, and our faith will move your MOUNTAINS into the sea.

28.58% of what exactly?