Yeah, the bible felt the need to specifically make rules for beating slaves... but not to death... and no slave had to fear a beating. Colour me unconvinced.I knew this was going to start happening, which is why I made this summary. When you and your kind come up with anything this progressive, I will start listening to your pathetic attempts to demonize old testament economics.
Out of curiosity, who is your boss
the slaves of the bible were more like servants, maid servants, maids, housekeeping, butlers, workers
This is false... the US justice system is descended from English Common Law, which was based before it on Roman Law.
And the 10 commandments certainly do not form the basis of the legal system... only two commandments (dont kill and don't steal) are against United States law, and both concepts predate the ten commandments by centuries.
Other commandments go directly against the constitution, or are non-starters when it comes to the basis of society.
worthless means that we cannot attain perfection in and of ourselves
worthless also means obama
worthless means that we cannot attain perfection in and of ourselves
More anti-Christian nonsense.
quote--------------------------
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world , that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
KJV
Even the blessing for the Jews is meant from Genesis on as a blessing for all people.
quote-------------------------
Gen 22:18
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
KJV
What a stunning rebuttal.... Do you expect me to retract my points based on that?
Wow, this thread has been seriously derailed.
Yeah, the bible felt the need to specifically make rules for beating slaves... but not to death... and no slave had to fear a beating. Colour me unconvinced.
It refers to slaves as property, a relationship and family a man developed over the seven years of ownership is just the possession of his master.
I don't consider the ancient any more horrific then many of their neighbors (the seem to have not been into human sacrifice and institutionalized pedophilia for example), but calling them 'progressive' seems to be a better candidate for 'pathetic'.
I work for a university... but I'm a slave to no one.
...who you could beat, and after seven years of service you owe nothing.
To summarize all these slavery verses up, it is illegal to steal people and sell them into slavery. People come into slavery due to financial reasons or, in some circumstances, foreigners come to be slaves after a war. Foreigners do not have to be freed. Jewish servants must be freed every Sabbath year. That is, at LEAST every 7 years.
On the Jubilee, everyone's debts are forgiven in full and everyone returns to their inheritance. Like a game of monopoly, you reset everything and start from scratch. This prevents undue accumulation of financial and economic power in the hands of the few.
This is, by far, the most progressive economy ever suggested in history.
Anyone beaten with a lasting injury must be freed.
Anyone who runs away must be allowed to run away.
So why would anyone take a beating and still remain a slave? If the slave is set free for an injury, his DEBT is forgiven. If he survives his beating without lasting injury, it is NOT. But under any circumstance, if the Master is THAT cruel, you can run away and the law is that no one is allowed to send you back to your master.
Dishonest and insulting? I quoted the exact verses that back up my case.
Slavery is clearly condoned within the bible, and instructions on how to treat slaves, and even the values you can sell them at are contained within the book.
Stealing another man is a capital offense... Selling slaves are not.
If you argue this point, you are pointing out one of the clear contradictions in the bible.
So, if we are indeed worthy, then why do we need to be redeemed? Why is Jesus needed?
If God thinks we're all hunky-dory, then it shouldn't be a problem getting into heaven just as we are... Jesus then becomes irrelevant.
Your religion (or at least major sects within your religion) teaches we are flawed and not worthy of God, and without Jesus we will burn in hell for all eternity. If we have value to your God, why would he toss us in a fire pit?
So please, drop the crap... I've heard everything I write about from Christians, I'm not just making this stuff up off the top of my head. You can't possibly be ignorant to the point that you can claim this isn't taught on a fairly widespread basis within your own religion either.
Originally Posted by Dave EllisDishonest and insulting? I quoted the exact verses that back up my case.
Slavery is clearly condoned within the bible, and instructions on how to treat slaves, and even the values you can sell them at are contained within the book.
Stealing another man is a capital offense... Selling slaves are not.
If you argue this point, you are pointing out one of the clear contradictions in the bible.
As of right now, I will be voting on Obama. The economy is spun so many different ways all I can do is look at the fact I am better now then 4 years ago. All but one person that I know are employed. So I am voting on social issues and Obama supports all but one of my social issues. Since no canidate of any party supports all of my social issues that leaves Obama as being the closest.
To summarize all these slavery verses up, it is illegal to steal people and sell them into slavery. People come into slavery due to financial reasons or, in some circumstances, foreigners come to be slaves after a war. Foreigners do not have to be freed. Jewish servants must be freed every Sabbath year. That is, at LEAST every 7 years.
On the Jubilee, everyone's debts are forgiven in full and everyone returns to their inheritance. Like a game of monopoly, you reset everything and start from scratch. This prevents undue accumulation of financial and economic power in the hands of the few.
This is, by far, the most progressive economy ever suggested in history.
Anyone beaten with a lasting injury must be freed.
Anyone who runs away must be allowed to run away.
So why would anyone take a beating and still remain a slave? If the slave is set free for an injury, his DEBT is forgiven. If he survives his beating without lasting injury, it is NOT. But under any circumstance, if the Master is THAT cruel, you can run away and the law is that no one is allowed to send you back to your master.
Yeah, the bible felt the need to specifically make rules for beating slaves... but not to death... and no slave had to fear a beating. Colour me unconvinced.
It refers to slaves as property, a relationship and family a man developed over the seven years of ownership is just the possession of his master.
I don't consider the ancient any more horrific then many of their neighbors (the seem to have not been into human sacrifice and institutionalized pedophilia for example), but calling them 'progressive' seems to be a better candidate for 'pathetic'.
I work for a university... but I'm a slave to no one.
...who you could beat, and after seven years of service you owe nothing.
I can sympathize with the social issues stance, although likely I disagree with you on most of them if Obama supports them, but it is really striking to me that you would even MENTION your employment and your friends employment in the context of the Obama Presidency. Granted he DID inarguably inherit a bad economy, he has focussed his attention on partisan politics almost entirely to the exclusion of doing anything to help the general economy.
The only reason this election is even close is Obama is about the most incompetent president since Carter. The other reason is Romney is about the most ridiculous choice ever to run for president.
The Republicans has a chance to run a landslide victory this year of the mammoth proportions of Reagan. Instead they doubled down on greed. In a way, I'm glad. If Obama wins it may well be the last we hear for a long, long time from the far right economically. If Romney wins nothing truly changes, because the economics Romney represents are just demonstrably idiotic.
Banks create our money. In order to repay the debts that back the bank created money (government bonds), someone has to be taxed. A lot. Only rich people have the money necessary.
If they don't break soon, the entire system implodes. I actually think that's part of the reason why Obama has been ignoring the economy. He knows they will not let it go entirely, and he cares more about party politics than anything else anyway, so he gets what he wants even if he is a one term pres.
When the Republicans ditch ALL of Obamacare, the Democrats will have a field day pointing out all the GOOD things in there that were abandoned, and the news media will not remind anyone of all the crap everyone was so [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed about before. More or less how they repainted the war in Iraq.
No one was at all confused why we went into Iraq at the time. They were involved in terrorism and had flaunted the UN for upwards of ten years. But after nigh a decade of no one talking about that.........
I'm not even voting for president this year, or will write someone in. Probably Ron Paul. Just out of a vain hope that enough people do it to get some news coverage. I don't even REALLY like Ron Paul, but he's the only person that even mentions anything important that the government actually has a hand in.
Romney: "I know how to create jobs." Oh really? As President? Your options for creating jobs while shrinking the government as President of the United States are quite limited, nitwit. Maybe you and your buds try not sitting on your money for half a decade just to weather the storm of a liberal president.
Since my employment and some of my friends employment came during the Obama presidency I think it is fair to report it.
On the partisanship, I probably agree with you more than you think. However, I think both parties do it. I dont think either party is willing to work with the other. If the other party proposes it, it must be bad and they will do anything to keep it from being passed. The Dems could propose a ban on abortions and the Reps could propose a total universal healthcare plan and the other party would fight it tooth and nail. I think the two parties just wont work with each other. So once again this is a non-issue since both sides will do it. Back to the social issues I go to vote then.
I hate not having a choice but there it is. (All 3rd party platforms are too extreme for me.)
Hmmmmm..... Ow. That -sounds- awfully self serving. On the other hand, it's not like anyone else was probably out there offering you the alternative....
We do seem to agree quite a bit on the generalities, but it is hard to imagine any social issues the Democrats tend to back that I can even come close to accepting.
I voted Republican for a long time based not at all on economics, but because I just abjectly fear the Democratic social issues as an extension of their commitment to Communistic and Socialistic ideas that have long since run their course. Specifically ideas about the family being some sort of Bourgeoisie construct of capitalism.
I come from a broken home. I have read and read studies and news stories about the effects of this, and I lived them myself. I have no doubts about why this is a bad trend. I have no doubts it can be reversed it our nation's people would just change their attitudes towards sex back to something even remotely sustainable.
(How's that for a fun use of the "sustainable" buzz word?)
I have little difficulty going years and years without sex, and indeed without the constant in-my-face of it all all over t.v, bill boards, radio, etc, I doubt I would have real problems with it at all. I find the assertion that people just can't help their sexual behaviors of any kind whatsoever to be demonstrably disproven. It truly, truly frightens me how much time and effort we spend promoting this sexual revolution stuff.....
Abortion, marriage issues, divorce, not so much birth control but to an extent, in that we seem to have got to the point where people expect to have their sexual escapades paid for by the state since they just can't help themselves. All of this just... I just cannot wrap my mind around it. I just can't.