Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

cvanwey said:

Beg to differ, but nice try.

*************

It seemed like we were almost going to have your acknowledgment of the axiomatic, right up until this statement gets to here....



*******************************************************



'ancient slavery'? 'represented from the OT'?

I'm beginning to think you are ignoring my observations from posts #428, #494, and now #522? After #522, you decided to chime back in, but produced a red herring instead. If you wish to be part of a productive discussion, please address relevant points. Putting that aside for now, let's address this 'ancient slavery' statement shall we?

Where in the NT does Jesus distinguish the 'acceptable' and 'inacceptable' formed of slavery?

(i.e. from post #428)

'- Slavery is not well defined. Wouldn't God know humans are dumb and/or self serving, and want to deploy 'improper' slavery practices?'

and

'- Jesus tells slaves to work for Christian slave masters even harder. And yet, Jesus does not tell slave masters to just no longer be slave masters.'

and

'- At one point in history, God completely seemed to allow the taking of virgins, as the spoils of war. Does He still? And even if He no longer allows for such, why was it okay at one point in time? Furthermore, will there ever exist a circumstance, in the future, where God could issue the allowance once again?'

and

'- Slaves have their own special set of rules, apart from Matthew 7:12 or Mark 12:31, as they are considered property/possessions/money.'

Just for starters...........

***********************

Below, we almost have another breakthrough. But again, it was not to be, as we get to here......



****************************



Last time it was a 'BUT', this time, you've replaced it with a 'However'. And you call me a broken record

You still have failed to address the basics (i.e.):

'A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.'

As compared to:

'44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.'

And we don't even need to speak about your repeated type of sighted slavery



My point is that either God did have a hand in such verses, or He did not. So which one is it? Purely man made, or God aided/inspired/directed/guided/revealed/etc?

And again, I would assume most do not agree with slavery, in practically any undefined form, and yet, God seems okay with it. Many here do not want to touch this topic, because they know it becomes quite sticky. I commend you for taking a crack at it. But at the end of the day, God condones undefined slavery. It's just that simple....

Click to expand...

No, it's defined by implication and intertextual context; the problem here is that: 1) you don't know how to interpret the Bible, and 2) you're not willing to interpret the verses you've ripped out of the body of the O.T. texts by being sensitive to the ways in which ancient jurisprudence likely intertwined the meanings between ALL of the various Legal texts. So, you're apparently 'reading' your 2 or 3 verses in an isolated fashion, thinking that ... no other ... verses have anything to do with how we would better understand how the Israelites understood their Law and adjudicated it.

What's strange is that you've conjoined some implications of intercontextual meaning between Ex. 21 and Lev. 25, but you don't seem to want to let 'in' all of the additional texts and contexts which I would also ADD to that which you've already taken upon yourself to conjoin. Now......why is that? Why the insistency in your inconsistency, @cvanwey? Is it because you're just here to trash the Bible and make sure it dies a painful death among all onlookers? (It's not like you'll succeed if that's what you're here for.)

2PhiloVoid said:

....THE institution of slavery? No, An institution of slavery. You need to correct that part of what you've just said, IA, along with some other parts. And since @cvanwey seems to think that Antebellum Slavery doesn't play a part in our contextual considerations, I guess both you and I can drop any forthcoming chatty-chat-chat-chat over that article by Ebenezer Dipstick.

Click to expand...

"Shouting" text, unfounded claims, and personal insults towards a third party, rather than refuting their arguments, show that you're losing it.
I need to correct my claim that God approves of slavery? God, through the Bible, has clearly shown His will, both in talking about slavery in the specific and the abstract. The New Testament doesn't tell a specific set of slaves to obey their masters in a certain time and place; it says, "Slaves, obey your masters".

I'll let Pastor Warren take it from here:
"Some of our greatest members of Christian Forums, whose moral worth is still fragrant in the memories of all – but who better understand the laws of nations, political economy, and the Constitution of the U.S., than they did the Bible, have declared slavery to be a sin.
...
Had God, the Great Law Giver, been opposed to slavery, he would perhaps have said, “thou shalt not hold property in man: thou shalt not enslave thy fellow being, for all men are born free and equal.” Instead of reproving the sin of covetousness, he would have denounced the sin of slavery; but instead of this denunciation, when He became the Ruler of his people, He established, regulated and perpetuated slavery by special enactment, and guaranteed the unmolested rights of masters to their slaves by Constitutional provision."

Sound common sense. If God had thought slavery to be wrong, He would certainly have said so. He didn't.

But, as I said earlier - this is too much to ask of you. It is, perhaps, unkind of me to insist, but I must admit my sense of kindness is somewhat diminished when it comes to people who go on a public forum and loudly proclaim me to be completely mistaken, without being able to engage the evidence.

2PhiloVoid said:

No, it's defined by implication and intertextual context; the problem here is that: 1) you don't know how to interpret the Bible

Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Twenty-eight pages and counting, and these "errors" haven't yet been pointed out. Nor will they be, I predict.

2PhiloVoid said:

2) you're not willing to interpret the verses you've ripped out of the body of the O.T. texts by being sensitive to the ways in which ancient jurisprudence likely intertwined the meanings between ALL of the various Legal texts.

Click to expand...

You know, "context" and isn't a magical idea that means "If you say the Bible disagrees with me, you must be reading it wrong." Explain the "context" that nullifies or reverses the clear word of God on slavery, if you are able to.

2PhiloVoid said:

Is it because you're just here to trash the Bible and make sure it dies a painful death among all onlookers? (It's not like you'll succeed if that's what you're here for.)

Click to expand...

Few Christians here seem willing to touch the subject of slavery in the Bible. This could be because they can see that you and Halbhh are unable to refute the clear meaning of the Bible in support of slavery.

InterestedAtheist said:

Few Christians here seem willing to touch the subject of slavery in the Bible. This could be because they can see that you and Halbhh are unable to refute the clear meaning of the Bible in support of slavery.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm quite surprised, really. Especially since, if one has the right academic sources, I'm confident that one could blow both your and his arguments out of the water without too much in the way of any loss of breath. Besides, education isn't built in a day, and as they told me in teacher's college, "Learning is a lifetime process..." I figure that in the case of some atheists, learning about topics like "slavery in de bible" will also be one of those processes. So, I'm willing to go slow with the both of you.

It could also be that other Christians here have seen both you and @cvanwey repeating the same cliche arguments and that no one can get anywhere with you because you don't seem to want to go anywhere. They probably think---like I'm starting to think---that even if additional evidence was handed to you in a bow ribbon and with a gift card, you'd still look askance upon whatever was passed your way. Moreover, I've already pointed out that @cvanwey is apparently hermeneutically impaired, and if you can't see that he is methodologically inconsistent, then maybe you need to have your vision checked, and maybe something else checked, too.

As for your link to Ebenezer Wannabe, I'll pass in addressing his article since it seems @cvanwey has already hand-waived that away for the time being. Maybe you should take note of your partner's tactics better than you have been; you seem to be out of synch with him at the moment. Besides, even a moron can tell that there is a big difference between what was done to slaves in Ancient Israel and what was done to African peoples in the not so ancient Antebellum Southern United States. Since this is the case, I wonder what Ebenezer's problem really was ....................... maybe racism was his problem?

InterestedAtheist said:

Uh-huh. Twenty-eight pages and counting, and these "errors" haven't yet been pointed out. Nor will they be, I predict.

Click to expand...

Y'know, prognosticating isn't really smiled upon here at CF, right?

You know, "context" and isn't a magical idea that means "If you say the Bible disagrees with me, you must be reading it wrong." Explain the "context" that nullifies or reverses the clear word of God on slavery, if you are able to.

Click to expand...

The juridical "context" is that we are to take, at the very least, the whole Law of God, study it together as a unit and realize, again at the least, that the ancient Israelites likely adjudicated their decisions in a more wholistic fashion, and that ALL of the Law should come to bear upon any one singular legal infraction; heck, Jesus just happened to mention this little note in passing to Satan when the both of them were having that spat in the desert. Of course, you remember that don't you? So, a good Israelite leader and judge wouldn't have interpreted the verses that @cvanwey keeps repeating, and that you keep repeating, in the way that you ... both keep repeating and bleating "Beaten for life, beaten for life, beaten for life!"

Few Christians here seem willing to touch the subject of slavery in the Bible. This could be because they can see that you and Halbhh are unable to refute the clear meaning of the Bible in support of slavery.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that isn't the case.

But for those who think I'm just a dog barking up the wrong tree, I'll just start those persons off to learn the applications of social science in line with their historical knowledge of slavery in the U.S., especially as it relates to the Bible, by presenting them with this wonderfully famous piece by Frederick Douglass (I mean, a person has to start somewhere in his/her education about Slavery and the Bible---it might as well be here rather than with Ebenezer Warren, right?!):

Frederick Douglass - What to the Slave is the 4th of July? July 5, 1852.

I particularly like Douglass' brief summation about it: "Oppression makes a wise man mad." Very important concept, there, this word "oppression" to our interpretation of the Old Testament Law.

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, and I'm quite surprised, really. Especially since, if one has the right academic sources, I'm confident that one could blow both your and his arguments out of the water without too much in the way of any loss of breath.

Click to expand...

After twenty-eight pages, all I can say is, what are you waiting for?
Seriously. That sounds pretty strange, considering you've had literally weeks to blow us out of the water.

2PhiloVoid said:

Besides, education isn't built in a day, and as they told me in teacher's college, "Learning is a lifetime process..." I figure that in the case of some atheists, learning about topics like "slavery in de bible" will also be one of those processes. So, I'm willing to go slow with the both of you.

Click to expand...

While an educational course may well take a certain amount of time, as it should, that doesn't mean that its contents should be secret until the very end.
If you have something to say, then please say it.

2PhiloVoid said:

It could also be that other Christians here have seen both you and @cvanwey repeating the same cliche arguments and that no one can get anywhere with you because you don't seem to want to go anywhere. They probably think---like I'm starting to think---that even if additional evidence was handed to you in a bow ribbon and with a gift card, you'd still look askance upon whatever was passed your way.

Click to expand...

Additional evidence!?
Honestly any evidence would be nice.
Philo, after twenty-eight pages and counting, your contribution to this debate has been to pass arch remarks about how dense we are for missing obvious points that you always seem to be too busy to make.
At this point, the jokes on you, and it's getting funnier with every page.

2PhiloVoid said:

Moreover, I've already pointed out that @cvanwey is apparently hermeneutically impaired, and if you can't see that he is methodologically inconsistent, then maybe your need to have your vision checked, and maybe something else checked, too.

Click to expand...

See what I mean? Like this. You talk, and talk, and talk, and eventually end up with...nothing.

2PhiloVoid said:

As for your link to Ebenezer Wannabe, I'll pass in addressing his article since it seems @cvanwey has already hand-waived that away for the time being. Maybe you should take note of your partner's tactics better than you have been; you seem to be out of synch with him at the moment.

Click to expand...

Okay. @cvanwey , I hope you don't mind me referencing preachers from the nineteenth century, who gave some very convincing demonstrations of how the Bible supports and encourages slavery? Philo seems to think you'd rather I not talk about them.

2PhiloVoid said:

Besides, even a moron can tell that there is a big difference between what was done to slaves in Ancient Israel and what was done to African peoples in the not so ancient Antebellum Southern United States.

Click to expand...

Sure! there's plenty of differences. For one thing, they lived on different continents. For another thing, there was an element of racism at play. For a third thing, they were separated by a couple of thousand years. but these are superficial differences compared to the fact that it involved humans owning other humans, making them do forced labour, and having legal permission to punish them if they wished.

2PhiloVoid said:

Since this is the case, I wonder what Ebenezer's problem really was ....................... maybe racism was his problem?

Click to expand...

He almost certainly was a racist, as were most people at that time, including abolitionists themselves. But when it came to pointing out how the Bible supported slavery, he was perfectly correct - and I'm still waiting for you to point out his, or my, mistakes (on the matter of the Bible supporting slavery, that is, not on the general morality of holding slaves, which is where you and I agree, and Pastor Warren did not).

2PhiloVoid said:

Y'know, prognosticating isn't really smiled upon here at CF, right?

Click to expand...

What, predicting that since you haven't yet been able to make an argument in twety-eight pages you're not going to be able to in the future? Sounds reasonable enough to me.

2PhiloVoid said:

The juridicial "context" is that we are to take, at the very least, the whole Law of God, study it together as a unit and realize, again at the least, that the ancient Israelites likely adjudicated their decisions in a more holistic fashion, and that ALL of the Law should come to bear upon any one singular legal infraction

So, a good Israelite leader and judge wouldn't have interpreted the verses that @cvanwey keeps repeating, and that you keep repeating, in the way that you ... both keep repeating and bleating "Beaten for life, beaten for life, beaten for life!"

Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Several points to answer this.

First of all, the onus is now on you to demonstrate if and how this happened. You tried to some pages ago, I remember, with an article defending Biblical slavery, which rather undercut your case.
This argument is, in fact, something of a red herring. You're now not debating if the Bible supports slavery; rather, you're conceding that it does, and arguing that slavery isn't inherently bad! This leads us to the next point...

Secondly, it's rather interesting that you are using pro-slavery arguments here. The pro-slavery apologists often said that slavery was not, in fact, all that bad at all; that slaves were well-treated and well-off. Rather like you just said when defending the Bible. It's amusing to see you repeating their arguments to try to justify Biblical slavery! Of course, I imagine you will respond that you're right about the Bible, and antebellum slavers were wrong. This can, of course, be debated - this article does a very good job at pointing out the similarities between Biblical slavery and American slavery, including the fact that America, too, had laws to prevent the egregious abuse of slaves, just as the Bible did. But this leads us on to the next point...

Third...well, I shall let another pro-slavery preacher refute you:
"That Christian nations have not done all they might, or should have done, on a principle of Christian benevolence, for the civilization and conversion of the Africans: that much cruelty has been practised in the slave trade, as the benevolent Wilberforce, and others have shown; that much tyranny has been exercised by individuals, as masters over their slaves, and that the religious interests of the latter have been too much neglected by many cannot, will not be denied. But the fullest proof of these facts, will not also prove, that the holding men in subjection, as slaves, is a moral evil, and inconsistent with Christianity. Magistrates, husbands, and fathers, have proved tyrants. This does not prove, that magistracy, the husband's right to govern, and parental authority, are unlawful and wicked. The individual who abuses his authority, and acts with cruelty, must answer for it at the Divine tribunal; and civil authority should interpose to prevent or punish it; but neither civil nor ecclesiastical authority can consistently interfere with the possession and legitimate exercise of a right given by the Divine Law."

You see, it doesn't matter if slaves were, in fact, well-treated; the question is, is it wrong to hold another human against their will, force them to work for you, and have the right to punish them if you wish?

Fourth, you have now placed yourself in the embarrassing position of arguing that if slaves in, say, antebellum America were not abused severely, you are pro-slavery. Since some certainly were, you have conceded that the Bible does, in fact, support slavery - and that Christians ought to as well. Congratulations!

2PhiloVoid said:

But for those who think I'm just a dog barking up the wrong tree, I'll just start those persons off to learn the applications of social science in line with their historical knowledge of slavery in the U.S., especially as it relates to the Bible, by presenting them with this wonderfully famous piece by Frederick Douglass (I mean, a person has to start somewhere in his/her education about Slavery and the Bible---it might as well be here rather than with Ebenezer Warren, right?!):

Click to expand...

Well, it depends. If you want to know if slavery is right or wrong, I would definitely recommend Douglass over Warren. On the other hand, if you want to know if the Bible supports slavery, I would certainly recommend Warren over Douglass.

You see, as I've pointed out a number of times now, it's not that slavery is right; it's that the Bible says it is right.

The fact is, slavery is wrong. But the Bible supports slavery. And this means that the Bible itself is in the wrong.

And that is something you do not seem to be able to admit. It is, as I said earlier, probably asking too much of you.

cvanwey said:

Nope. It's that the Bible does not go much into depth about slavery. It's not like the topic of slavery plays a large part in the Bible over-all. The verses are sprinkled in here and there... However, most/all verses, in which the Bible does discuss about this direct topic of slavery in general, seems to suggest complete approval... (i.e.) it is not 'wrong'. You have yet to demonstrate this is not the case.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Congratulations, you've summed up the whole thread.

cvanwey said:

But like I stated prior, maybe you are just toying with me, 'like a cat to the half dead mouse'.

Click to expand...

At this point, it looks like, rather than playing with you, he's pursuing the wrong argument, despite having had it pointed out repeatedly.

In fact, what we have here is a cat who is flogging a dead red herring.

In post #546, was there supposed to be a response from you there? I'm not seeing one.

Since there isn't, I'm guessing I must have hit pretty close to home, ay?

cvanwey said:

Since we are on the topic of 'speculation', I speculate most have bowed out, because it appears quite axiomatic, that slavery is condoned by the Bible.

Click to expand...

Yes, slavery is condoned in the Bible. And so what? It's not like what the ancient Israelites were doing was the same thing that the white folks of the Antebellum South were doing during the Atlantic Slave Trade. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that no one here really cares what happened in regard to the slavery of the dirty Canaanites (or slavery by the Canaanites, for that matter) all those many millennia ago.

No, all that is really pertinent, even if it remains unacknowledged by you, is that the concept of slavery today is pretty much defined by all those nasty things that African American people had to endure at the hands of ignorant white folks who claimed to be 'Christian' a few hundred years ago. If we realize that the current interest in slavery at all today is driven by what happened just a few hundred years ago, then your OP post becomes a relatively moot point since the ancient form of slavery in Israel wasn't anything near what the Antebellum slavery was.

(Wow. I'm glad that's all cleared up now! Aren't you?)

Addressed in post #548. But your increasing 'ad homs' appear juvenile in nature, and speak more to the increasing certainty, that you are aware that what we are saying, appears sound.... That all such verses, related to the topic of slavery, appear man made alone. You are instead attacking character, in an attempt to distract.

Click to expand...

No, I think my ad homs are more than appropriate considering its you and IA were talking about here.

He's handling himself quite nicely, in my estimation. He does not need my help

Click to expand...

You guys are so sure of yourselves, aren't you? It must really gall you to feel so [seemingly] close to a victory that....will never come.

cvanwey said:

Are you even going to attempt to respond to the many points issued in post #522? Or, instead, 'sweep them under the rug', and hope they go away? I am not going to even entertain this, what looks to be feeble attempt at a response, until you first issue an earnest answer to your prior assertions, in which I took the time to respond....

If you are not going to even address response post #522, which directly addressed your prior assertions, then this will not be productive.

Click to expand...

Seems like a dodge on your part. You said in post 522. you feel God considers 'slavery' a sin, the Bible would need to clearly elude to such a conclusion.

We haven't agreed on the definition of the word slave. My post is establishing the biblical meaning. I understand your argument rests on not doing that.

2PhiloVoid said:

Yes, slavery is condoned in the Bible. And so what?

Click to expand...

First of all, that's quite a huge concession you've made there. To condone means to go along with it, to say that while you don't necessarily agree with it you're willing to tolerate it. And that's not something any of us would say about slavery, and that's not something that God or Jesus said about the many other things they saw as evil - even Jesus could be quite fiery in denouncing things He disagreed with!
So when you say the Bible condones slavery, you're already agreeing that its moral standards are at fault. But of course, it's worse than that. The Bible doesn't just condone slavery. It actively orders slave-taking, and encourages slaves to stay in their roles. The Bible is, in short, pro-slavery.

2PhiloVoid said:

It's not like what the ancient Israelites were doing was the same thing that the white folks of the Antebellum South were doing during the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Click to expand...

Yes. It is very much like that.
"Go, and attack these peoples, and kill all of them, except for the young girls, who you can keep for yourselves".
"You may take slaves from the surrounding nations".
"Slaves, obey your masters, for you belong to them".
"You shall not be punished, for the slave is your money".
"The slave may go free - unless he wishes to stay with his wife and children, in which case he may make a declaration that he does not wish for his freedom, and you may bore a hole in his ear to mark him, and he shall be yours forever."

While no society is like any other society, and while there are certain differences between the different eras, it is very clear that (a) Biblical slavery was an immoral practice, and that (b) it was ordained and encouraged by God.

2PhiloVoid said:

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that no one here really cares what happened in regard to the slavery of the dirty Canaanites (or slavery by the Canaanites, for that matter) all those many millennia ago.

Click to expand...

"In fact, I'd go so far as to say," an antebellum slave-trader might have remarked, "That nobody really cares what happens to those dirty n________s in Africa. We bring them here, house them, tend them, give them a purpose in life, educate them, and provide for the salvation of their souls."

2PhiloVoid said:

No, all that is really pertinent, even if it remains unacknowledged by you, is that the concept of slavery today is pretty much defined by all those nasty things that African American people had to endure at the hands of ignorant white folks who claimed to be 'Christian' a few hundred years ago.

Click to expand...

No, that's just what you say we say. I've never said that. All you're doing is setting up a strawman.

2PhiloVoid said:

(Wow. I'm glad that's all cleared up now! Aren't you?)

Click to expand...

You've done a great job in demonstrating the paucity of your arguments.

2PhiloVoid said:

No, I think my ad homs are more than appropriate considering its you and IA were talking about here.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. By indulging in them and boasting of indulging in them, you're just digging your own hole deeper.

2PhiloVoid said:

You guys are so sure of yourselves, aren't you? It must really gall you to feel so [seemingly] close to a victory that....will never come.

Click to expand...

Actually, it came several pages ago. This is me enjoying the victory.

cvanwey said:

The Bible does not set anything close to the limitations of what slavery is and it not.

Click to expand...

The bible isn't a text book for a high school class.

cvanwey said:

What would you consider the virgins in the cited case below?

Click to expand...

Lucky.

cvanwey said:

Being 'taken' permanently, against your will, might be considered as 'slavery', don't you think?

Click to expand...

Just taken? No, forced labor is a necessary component. Having Hebrew babies counts.

cvanwey said:

God appears silent, in regards to the taking of virgins, upon the spoils of war.

Click to expand...

Nah, I think God wanted them to do that too. Building up the faith founded on Divine Revelation. Taking those virgins at that time....it was worth it.

cvanwey said:

As YOU know, since the writings of the Bible, there has spawn many unique denominations in it's wake; whom all interpret to 'taste' - (i.e.) personal believed 'moral preferences.' Many disagree about many things. The ones whom later attempt to abolish 'slavery', in practically any form, are doing so on their own accord. Like I stated a long time ago now....

Click to expand...

Our faith is developmental, for example; eye for an eye developed into do unto others and Jesus capped it off with love your enemies.
I belong to a community that has surrounded Jesus since He was here. That's the Church and the bible isn't it's source. The bible comes from that community not visa versa. So, when you speak about what God calls a sin you can't decide for yourself you have to get with them to know. What do you think? God shouts down to earth with a megaphone?

cvanwey said:

Humans later deciding to abolish 'slavery' practices ON THEIR OWN, is actually not considered a sin by God. However, if slavery practices were again legalized, God would not consider such an act sin either.

********************

Click to expand...

Humans later deciding?? You sound like you believe in Divine Revelation telling people what God considers sin and all.

InterestedAtheist said:

...Actually, it came several pages ago. This is me enjoying the victory.

Click to expand...

Oh, you won? Really? Ok. Since you think that this is the case, then I guess we're done! Hooray! (...and I'll just save all of my additional sources, resources, and other pearls of wisdom, for discussion with those who, unlike both you and @cvanwey, want to take this whole subject seriously and academically.)

Eloy Craft said:

The bible isn't a text book for a high school class.

Lucky.

Just taken? No, forced labor is a necessary component. Having Hebrew babies counts.

Nah, I think God wanted them to do that too. Building up the faith founded on Divine Revelation. Taking those virgins at that time....it was worth it.

Our faith is developmental, for example; eye for an eye developed into do unto others and Jesus capped it off with love your enemies.
I belong to a community that has surrounded Jesus since He was here. That's the Church and the bible isn't it's source. The bible comes from that community not visa versa. So, when you speak about what God calls a sin you can't decide for yourself you have to get with them to know. What do you think? God shouts down to earth with a megaphone?

Humans later deciding?? You sound like you believe in Divine Revelation telling people what God considers sin and all.

Click to expand...

Don't waste any more time with these punks, Eloy. Seriously! They're not actually here as 'studied' individuals on the subject. If you want to continue with them, be my guest, bro! But I no longer take them seriously; they're immovable in their positions and show no clear signs of having studied that over which they're attempting to speak.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but sometimes the horse isn't a horse, it's a mule ...