daily Bible verse

[falcon9]

"Do not be mislead.Bad associations spoil useful habits."

If that is the case, it is misleading to make false metaphysical/religious associations and spoil the usefulness of reasoned thought.

[jcribb16]

My my my the racist shows its face. From many of your post I felt a certain thing about you and now with these latest post I think you have surfaced. Jcribb you hide behind verses and quotes, but more and more you show your true identity.

I am not racist and I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way.  I do not condone slavery, either, but was trying to show him why God allowed slavery, under stipulations, as a way for the poor to survive.  I meant nothing racist about anyone - remember, slavery in the Bible, the Old Testament, wasn't based on race, period.  It was based on the poor to help them. 

You are beginning to show your biased side as well.  I'm sorry for that, for I thought you were doing quite well with standing up for God's Word and God.  You even have Psalm 23 as a side reference, which identifies you as a Christian. 

[jcribb16]

I gave where I got it from, and compellingtruth.org is from gotquestions.org. Disagreeing with the info given is your prerogative.  You are only focusing on one point of the whole issue instead of the reasons surrounding the issue.  Since you refuse to consider the reasons around the issue, then agreeing to disagree is the final answer.

Agreed. I will continue to speak against slavery in all forms. You can continue beating around the bush with excuses and believing it's okay in certain situations.

Just keep in mind today, that although there aren't "slaves" technically serving in rich households, castles, etc., they are still people doing the same time of things in those households that people did back then - as a way to survive.  They get paid money in today's society, but they are technically still "serving" others and are considered the "help," maids, valets, servants, etc.

Incorrect example. Not being able to leave the 'job' is slavery. People today are granted the right to leave if they dislike the job and take a new one, and thus the above example is flawed.

Back then, at least they had a way to get out of financial burdens by doing what they did, and the ones they worked for, at least were to have a heart and let them work for them, following the rules given in regards to their humanity.  That was a lot better than the way many slaves were treated right here in our own country.

Again, slavery is slavery. It's morally wrong and you trying to defend it in any way is repugnant.

I do not condone slavery and you know that.  I agree, slavery is slavery, period.  I have no idea why you are arguing that part with me.  I only gave the reasons WHY God allowed slavery, as a means for the poor to survive.  Otherwise, the poor would have been rendered homeless, helpless, and have nowhere to turn.  Under the stipulations given, God was trying to help the poor have a way to help themselves, including those who were rich or had more, not just handing out, so to speak, but giving them an opportunity to work, as well.  Again, I do NOT condone slavery at all, and was attempting to clarify the reasons WHY it took place.  I am NOT defending it - just clarifying the WHY.

[jcribb16]

Another point worth mentioning Re:slavery in the Bible.It wasn't always done to subjugate any certain race.A lot of people think that's synonymous with slavery,but it's not really the case.Not all slavery is classified the same.Not all people who owned slaves were  "evil" by association.(Needless to say,many of our founding fathers were slave owners.Didn't make them evil by default.)

I wouldn't waste anymore time debating this here (it's a verse thread,not a debate thread after all.) but obviously Falconer is going to hide behind his "I don't trust your source!" routine as usual.

Thank you for that about the race part of it.  I agree, too, that it will be a waste of anymore time to try and discuss when there is no "open" way to see at least the reasons of the "why" part of it. 

[jcribb16]

Since you refuse to consider the reasons around the issue, then agreeing to disagree is the final answer.

No, that's a false dichotomy; the excuses, (not eumphemistic "reasons", since reason is based upon logical reasoning, not 'excuses'), cannot be 'justified' by any religious belief.

Just keep in mind today, that although there aren't "slaves" technically serving in rich households, castles, etc., they are still people doing the same time of things in those households that people did back then - as a way to survive.  They get paid money in today's society, but they are technically still "serving" others and are considered the "help," maids, valets, servants, etc.

The difference is that such work is done voluntarily for pay, not involuntarily for room and board and that's a significant difference.

Back then, at least they had a way to get out of financial burdens by doing what they did, and the ones they worked for, at least were to have a heart and let them work for them ... 

This sounds like such 'volunatary servitude' "slavery" was similar to today's employee except that today's employer's are not legally able to beat/kill/have sex with their 'employees' under the banner of some superstitious religious strictures.

That was a lot better than the way many slaves were treated right here in our own country.

Sure it was; research much?

The "slavery" being discussed here is not the same as you are trying to include.  You are speaking of the slavery that Egypt used.  They used the chattel way of owning their slaves - they tricked them into working and then refused to let them go.  They kidnapped them and refused to let them go.  They mistreated them, hit them, hurt them, overworked them, punished them needlessly, messed with the women, and withheld food from them, etc.  That is when God stepped in and rescued or redeemed the Israelites from under the Egyptians.  Research much? - applies to you with that - go for it.

[falcon9]

Under the stipulations given

The "stipulations given" are based upon unfounded religious speculations regarding 'slavery' as a form of ancient welfare.  They rely upon further speculations attributing the form to a supernatural cause, which is not a reasoned hypothesis but, a faith-based, (sans evidence), assumption.
  

God was trying to help the poor ...

That's an unfounded attribution to a supernatural entity which has no evidentiary basis and instead, relies entirely upon a religious belief, (which has no evidentiary basis itself).  Basing one fiction upon another doesn't produce non-fiction.

[falcon9]

The "slavery" being discussed here is not the same as you are trying to include.  You are speaking of the slavery that Egypt used. 

Nothing in my reply asserted anything about Egypt's use of slavery.

Research much? - applies to you with that - go for it.

Falsely assume much?  I know you do because there is extensively-archived evidence of it, (including this post, in which you try to tell me that I was "speaking of" something I never mentioned - which is also known as false attribution/lying).

[jcribb16]

Under the stipulations given

The "stipulations given" are based upon unfounded religious speculations regarding 'slavery' as a form of ancient welfare.  They rely upon further speculations attributing the form to a supernatural cause, which is not a reasoned hypothesis but, a faith-based, (sans evidence), assumption.
  

God was trying to help the poor ...

That's an unfounded attribution to a supernatural entity which has no evidentiary basis and instead, relies entirely upon a religious belief, (which has no evidentiary basis itself).  Basing one fiction upon another doesn't produce non-fiction.

Whatever you choose to think with this is your prerogative - free choice and freedom to voice your stand.  Good for you, and good for all - we are fortunate to have this freedom.

[jcribb16]

The "slavery" being discussed here is not the same as you are trying to include.  You are speaking of the slavery that Egypt used. 

Nothing in my reply asserted anything about Egypt's use of slavery.

Research much? - applies to you with that - go for it.

Falsely assume much?  I know you do because there is extensively-archived evidence of it, (including this post, in which you try to tell me that I was "speaking of" something I never mentioned - which is also known as false attribution/lying).

I was responding about Egypt because their use of slavery was the ugly things you mentioned, and was not the slavery God allowed for the poor to have a way to survive.  If you want to twist words around again, then there is no more to say to you about this. 

[falcon9]

Whatever you choose to think with this is your prerogative

Thanks but, your 'permission' to think rationally is not required, (just as you don't need anyone else's 'permission' to think irrationally except your own).

- free choice and freedom to voice your stand.  Good for you, and good for all - we are fortunate to have this freedom.

Indeed; such an option would disappear under a dictatorial religious theocracy - something to avoid at all costs.

[jcribb16]

Whatever you choose to think with this is your prerogative

Thanks but, your 'permission' to think rationally is not required, (just as you don't need anyone else's 'permission' to think irrationally except your own).

- free choice and freedom to voice your stand.  Good for you, and good for all - we are fortunate to have this freedom.

Indeed; such an option would disappear under a dictatorial religious theocracy - something to avoid at all costs.

No more speaking with your non-reasoning to discuss this issue.  Good night.

[falcon9]

I was responding about Egypt because their use of slavery was the ugly things you mentioned, and was not the slavery God allowed for the poor to have a way to survive. 

To reiterate; you may be referring to Aegyptian slavery, I was not.  Until now.  Where are the valid non-biblical references to Aegyptians treating their slaves any differently than Hebrews/Isrealites treated theirs.  Imputing religious justifcatons based upon unsubtantiated religious beliefs isn't logical, (and is therefore speciously irrational speculation).

If you want to twist words around again, then there is no more to say to you about this. 

On the contrary, I'm not the one making false assumptions and attributing them to something not stated or implied, (you were, xtian liar).  As it happens, I'd considered the examples of Chinese and Japanese slavery as well as the usage of slaves by "native" american/canadian tribes which consisted of the members of other tribes.  I still haven't mentioned Eygpt, (or 'Aegypt'), in regards to slavery - you are falsely imputed such to me.  That's more than a "twist"; it's you fabricating another strawman argument and falsely attributing it.

[falcon9]

No more speaking with your non-reasoning to discuss this issue.  Good night.

Your assertion is manifestly false, as my previous posts in this context have been based on logical reasoning, (as opposed to presumptive faith-based religious irrationalities).

[jcribb16]

Good night.

[Falconer02]

Again, I do NOT condone slavery at all, and was attempting to clarify the reasons WHY it took place.  I am NOT defending it - just clarifying the WHY.

Got it. The problem still arises of a god who condones slavery. There are better methods to help the poor aside from slavery-- it's logical to assume an all-powerful entity would know this. I'm simply pointing out an obvious error in logic and actions taken.

Another point worth mentioning Re:slavery in the Bible.It wasn't always done to subjugate any certain race.A lot of people think that's synonymous with slavery,but it's not really the case.Not all slavery is classified the same.Not all people who owned slaves were  "evil" by association.(Needless to say,many of our founding fathers were slave owners.Didn't make them evil by default.)

Obviously. The problem you (again) have overlooked is owning another human being is wrong. The fundamental principle of the idea is immoral. The founding fathers who owned slaves were immoral for doing so. It is a bad quality to own slaves. Just because a powerful figure did it does not mean it's right-- you're using an appeal to authority here.

I wouldn't waste anymore time debating this here (it's a verse thread,not a debate thread after all.) but obviously Falconer is going to hide behind his "I don't trust your source!" routine as usual

How am I hiding? Not trusting a source is a challenge for you to prove it. Of course you're usually the first to scurry away when there is a challenge. Considering your faulty sources and child-like reasonings and face-palming errors in the past, it's important for the opposition to check your sources when you bring them up. Your sources are always questionable.