Romney or Obama?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
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.
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'.

Out of curiosity, who is your boss

I work for a university... but I'm a slave to no one.

the slaves of the bible were more like servants, maid servants, maids, housekeeping, butlers, workers

...who you could beat, and after seven years of service you owe nothing.
 
Upvote 0

trientje

Newbie
May 23, 2012
886
10
✟8,577.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

Please read your history. Whether you like it or not the constitution, the supreme court housing the ten commandments are there for a reason. Because this gov was formed under the influence of the Hebrew law. I could site you verse upon verse to prove this. I'm personally so sick and tired of atheists and left wing nuts trying to change history to suit their beliefs. You have all had your time in the sun. Now its time to get back to the truth about history, God and the bible.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,659
17,587
55
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟390,051.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,546
1,328
56
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
worthless means that we cannot attain perfection in and of ourselves

Sadly, no. That is not what worthless means. And you just handed Ellis a tiny rhetorical victory.

No big matter. But it would be a good thing if you were to learn not to just absently say things that cannot be backed up at all by fact.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,546
1,328
56
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
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?

Cute how you took advantage of how the quote function works to act like I did not already provide the argument you say was not there.
 
Upvote 0

trientje

Newbie
May 23, 2012
886
10
✟8,577.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

No, I'm asking you who you believe in? What you believe in. Who and what is it that you learn about life from? And this slavery thing? People on this site have tried to explain to you about slavery in the bible and you will not listen or read or study so you can understand. You are like a broken record with this slavery thing.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,546
1,328
56
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
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.

Note especially that steeling a man TO SELL is indeed the whole point of the capital crime in direct contradiction to your continually inaccurate and insulting claims.

When you and yours come up with an economic system even a tenth as forward thinking and egalitarian as this, you feel free to spew some more filth about the Old Testament and slavery. As it is, your China and Mexico enslaving, backbiting, bank controlled non-democratic hierarchy is no moral high ground from which to be spewing your utter nonsense.


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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GenetoJean

Veteran
Jun 25, 2012
2,807
140
Delaware
Visit site
✟18,940.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,546
1,328
56
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
Worthy to be saved. If you make a desperate mistake that will cost you your life, and someone makes a huge sacrifice to save you, that's not a reason to accuse them of thinking you unworthy of anything.

In fact, if you turn out to BE unworthy because your "mistake" is actually being a lying, brutal, thieving, lazy, or otherwise obviously immoral person, and the clear and fair result of your misdeeds is that you would die, and someone STILL reaches out to save you, how is that THEIR bad and not YOURS?

There are tons of verses that elucidate the concepts, and I believe you wholeheartedly when you say you have heard them before. It just is painfully obvious that you heard them with your mind already set to find the laziest, most inane, illogical, and hateful excuses imaginable to try to debunk them.

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.
 
Upvote 0

trientje

Newbie
May 23, 2012
886
10
✟8,577.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by Dave Ellis
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.

Mr Ellis, read the bible learn about the cultures back then. God chose to change slavery by changing mens hearts. You keep bringing up the same arguments and when given explanations you do not even try to learn or research from the information. what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that a Christian will come along and crack your wall of denial?
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,546
1,328
56
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,546
1,328
56
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
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.

Shem.

What about them being able to leave AT ANY TIME. WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE?

What about the redistribution of ALL LAND, every 50 years, not to the government but as a moral imperative TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES AS INDIVIDUALS, so as to minimize the need for any sort of servanthood to begin with?

Again, when you come within a thousand miles of this sort of progressive, democratic, individual-rights-promoting plan, you let me know.

The rest is just you popping off out of context claptrap trying to pretend the modern world does not have people being beaten and killed to force them to work harder for western interests. Your judgements are hypocritical in the extreme.

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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GenetoJean

Veteran
Jun 25, 2012
2,807
140
Delaware
Visit site
✟18,940.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
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.)
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,546
1,328
56
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
Why does God's law allow things that seem obviously immoral?

-----------------------------
Matt 19:8

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so .
KJV
------------------------------------

Because of the hardness of people's hearts. This world is passing away. It is passing away because people - not God, but people - are indeed evil. People simply will not do what God wants. Indeed, most of these progressive laws never were practiced to begin with. The Bible states plainly that the Jews never fully respected his Sabbaths (these seven day, seven year, and seven times seven year Jubile Sabaths).

Sabbath 5

There's a long list of verses related to not keeping Sabbath days there.

-------------------------------------
Lev 25:8-10

8 And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.

9 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land.

10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
KJV
----------------------------------------

So the real question is not why is the Bible so bad, but with such ideas as these clearly as ancient as they are and so far more fair and generous, why are men still refusing to abide by them?
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,546
1,328
56
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
Since my employment and some of my friends employment came during the Obama presidency I think it is fair to report it.

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....

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.)

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.
 
Upvote 0

GenetoJean

Veteran
Jun 25, 2012
2,807
140
Delaware
Visit site
✟18,940.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
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.

You have to understand my distrust of ALL media. I dont trust any numbers reported by anyone. Therefore I have to go by personal experience. But my statement about my job is probably affected by self serving thoughts, I will admit.

My heart goes out to you and I completely support you voting the way you think is best. If that is your experience vote that way. My experience is someone who has been ostrisized my whole life. Threatened and attacked because people THOUGHT I was homosexual. I dont see homosexuality being about the sex but just being about the person who you love. I do hate the fact that sexuality is thrown in your face. I would never stay at any function that turns sexual. I wont go to Gay pride parades for this reason. I think they are hurting the cause greatly having that. I see friends who have to go to the emergency room for non-life threatening medical conditions because they cant pay a doctor. I see people, me included from an earlier part of my life, having to file for bankruptcy from a legitimate visit to the emergency room without insurance. I see friends who are kicked out of hospital rooms because the family of the person they love doesnt approve of their same sex attraction. The hospital says they have to honor the wishes of the next of kin if the person isnt able to make their own decisions. If there are better ways of addressing this then what has been proposed then give them and lets vote on them. Until that happens I will support anything proposed that will help people in these situations.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.