You really should listen to Dan Carlinās podcasts. (Even if itās not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)
I really donāt care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
Itās not like it comes with more pay like a job. Itās basically just more work.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
Because thatās what youāre choosing to hear. Youāre ignoring all the other things Iāve said.
Iām hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods youāre saying, yes.
Youāre also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
I didnāt say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didnāt say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didnāt say that for child murder.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itās the bibleās core message, but when something doesnāt look to good for it, then itās just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you havenāt noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
I really donāt care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Edit: Iām still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlinās podcast āreligiousā and his content āwhitewashingā.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
If youāre referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatās wrong.
I didnāt say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
It didnāt say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her āchildrenā are the terrible things she does.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itās the bibleās core message, but when something doesnāt look to good for it, then itās just recorded in it, and also out of context.
No. Itās a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
Huh, so this wasnāt a quote used by you?
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Sure bud, Iāll rephrase. I really donāt care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.
If youāre referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatās wrong.
Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.
Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.
Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.
No. Itās a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since itās preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
And then of course thereās all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.
Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.
Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.
Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.
All of this is true. Hence why the āchildrenā (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.
Sure bud, Iāll rephrase. I really donāt care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.
Ya, this here sums up this entire discussion quite nicely. You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say. So much so that you immediately attribute everything I say to ignorance and religious bias.
If you knew who Dan Carlin is, if you were familiar with his content, and, most especially, if you had listened to the Humane Resources episode, you would understand how utterly ridiculous your statements are.
Everything I have said has been met with either ignoring it, denial, or flat out ignorance. The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a āreligious podcastā and still maintain that it āwhitewashesā anything, all without even looking up the podcast (which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history) is rich and entirely telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.
I respect your opinions (I really do), but I canāt continue talking to you as youāre unwilling to even entertain the idea of listening to the āother sideā.
All of this is true. Hence why the āchildrenā (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.
Of course.
And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?
You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say.
I tend to do that when the person Iām arguing against supports such despicable things.
The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a āreligious podcastā and still maintain that it āwhitewashesā anything, all without even looking up the podcast
I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.
telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.
Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?
(which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history)
Are you his publicist or something? Youāre trying really hard so sell his stuff.
It seems your forgot to answer this:
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since itās preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
And then of course thereās all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.
And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?
The only time thatās mentioned is once in Leviticus, and was specific to the ancient Israelites under the Mosaic law. Other things that were punishable by death were: adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, woman marrying and falsely claiming to be a virgin, sleeping with an engaged women, etc. At that time the term āJewā was both cultural and religious, there was no difference. If you were a Jew (an Israelite) then you were under that law.
Without getting too much into it, the Bible says that Mosaic law is superceded by the Law Covenant at the time of Jesusā death, and thus is no longer in affect.
The Bible further elaborates about how we should treat anyone.
Josiah 24:15 - āNow if it seems bad to you to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve,Ā whether the gods that your forefathers served on the other side of the RiverĀ or the gods of the AmŹ¹orĀ·ites in whose land you are dwelling.Ā But as for me and my household, we will serve Jehovah.ā
If you donāt want to follow the Bible or serve Jehovah, you are free to do so, and no one can make you (according to the Bible itself, but obviously that hasnāt stopped things like the Crusades).
1 Peter 2:17 - āHonor men of all sortsā
Pretty cut and dry.
The reason I ignored this topic before is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion, which was āthe Bible does not teach tortureā. I havenāt even been advocating the Bible, only talking about that one topic. But like all people who either canāt admit being wrong, or are wilfully ignorant and obstinate, you completely disregarded everything Iāve said and keep going on about other things in the Bible.
I tend to do that when the person Iām arguing against supports such despicable things.
Ah, so if I said āeveryone deserves respectā you would argue in favour of treating everyone terribly?
I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.
Like I said, if you knew his content from Hardcore History, any of it, you would understand how ridiculous your statement is. But just wait until you find out that some of the greatest minds regarded in science were Christian and believed in God.
Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?
Are you genuinely still asserting that I ever said āslavery was a good thingā? At this point youāre either just a troll or just really thick.
Are you his publicist or something? Youāre trying really hard so sell his stuff.
No. I suggested his stuff once, and then just kept laughing (not mockingly, I genuinely found it funny) at how absurd your attempts to discredit Hardcore History is, based purely on your bias towards me.
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
And Iām pretty sure no one ever wants to be poor in the first place. But if wishes were horsesā¦
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude?
The sad thing is that you might actually think I believe that, despite every rational attempt at genuine dialogue on my part. Makes me wonder if you even read everything that I wrote, and have just been assuming.
And then of course thereās all the homophobia in the bible
The Bible says homosexuality is displeasing to God because itās not how he intended romantic relationships to be. But it also says sex (of any kind) outside of marriage is also not ok. The big factor that people miss is that the Bible says to āhate what is badā, it never says āhate who is badā. You can hate the things someone does, but you should always treat them with respect, and even to love them as your neighbour.
But all of this is really relevant to the discussion about slavery in the Bible, right? It doesnāt have anything to do with the fact that you canāt argue the topic about slavery in the Bible on its own merit, is it?
Surely you wouldnāt try to discredit the source material in order to undermine your opponents arguments. Not you, never.
Anyways, Iām done with this discussion. You can reply if you like. Iāll read it, but I wonāt reply if you keep misrepresenting what Iāve said and try to put words in my mouth. If you donāt, then Iām willing to continue.
But otherwise Iāll say nice chatting with you, and take care.
Without getting too much into it, the Bible says that Mosaic law is superceded by the Law Covenant at the time of Jesusā death, and thus is no longer in affect.
āDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.ā
Matthew 5:17ā18
Itās still in effect according to your prophet and the son of your god, but you surely know more than him.
The reason I ignored this topic before is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion, which was āthe Bible does not teach tortureā.
You said: āThe Bible doesnāt teach dominating and torturing people, for one.ā
I gave to plenty of evidence, from the bible directly, that it teaches dominating and torturing people, you just choose to disregard facts because it does not agree with your narrative, which seems to be an epidemic with you religious types.
Ah, so if I said āeveryone deserves respectā you would argue in favour of treating everyone terribly?
That (unlike slavery) is not a despicable things, so I wonāt argue against it. Maybe try understanding my argument before trying (and failing) to come up with a snappy reply.
Like I said, if you knew his content from Hardcore History, any of it, you would understand how ridiculous your statement is.
Again, I wonāt buy any of his content. I donāt care for slavery apoligists.
But just wait until you find out that some of the greatest minds regarded in science were Christian and believed in God.
Iām keenly aware that christians forced their religion on everybody they could when it was acceptable. Thankfully, itās less acceptable now, but we still have ways to go. Thanks for reminding me how christianity pushed back the progess of science and humanity by centuries.
Are you genuinely still asserting that I ever said āslavery was a good thingā? At this point youāre either just a troll or just really thick.
You did quote the wikipedia article that said thatā¦
No. I suggested his stuff once, and then just kept laughing (not mockingly, I genuinely found it funny) at how absurd your attempts to discredit Hardcore History is, based purely on your bias towards me.
I looked up his name and his christian podcast came up, I went to his website where he is selling is podcast episodes.
I didnāt need to discredit him, he did that all on his own.
The sad thing is that you might actually think I believe that,
So you just argue for this you donāt belive in and agree with?
This is you, by the way:
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
The Bible says homosexuality is displeasing to God because itās not how he intended romantic relationships to be.
And he is a homophobe as well, what a surpriseā¦
It doesnāt have anything to do with the fact that you canāt argue the topic about slavery in the Bible on its own merit, is it?
I would think you really didnāt need to argue the fact that slavery is a bad thing, but the bible and you seem to disagree.
The arguments was about if the bible teaches to dominate and torture people, by the way, not just about slavery.
I just though that youād agree that slavery counted as dominating and torturing people. How wrong I was.
Surely you wouldnāt try to discredit the source material in order to undermine your opponents arguments. Not you, never.
Well, if the āsource materialā is a supposedly supernatural book and religion, and a pastorās podcast for that religion, I really donāt need to undermine it, it already undermined itself.
Iāll read it, but I wonāt reply if you keep misrepresenting what Iāve said and try to put words in my mouth.
How brave of you to leave an argument you lost.
I donāt misrepresent what you said, youāre just insinuating I did, becuase you realized your arguments sound really bad when you put them out there.
I really donāt care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
Iām hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods youāre saying, yes.
Youāre also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
I didnāt say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didnāt say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didnāt say that for child murder.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itās the bibleās core message, but when something doesnāt look to good for it, then itās just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you havenāt noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
Huh, so this wasnāt a quote used by you?
āIn fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveās point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.ā
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Edit: Iām still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlinās podcast āreligiousā and his content āwhitewashingā.
If youāre referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatās wrong.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her āchildrenā are the terrible things she does.
No. Itās a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
Sure bud, Iāll rephrase. I really donāt care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.
Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.
Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.
Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.
Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.
And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since itās preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
And then of course thereās all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.
All of this is true. Hence why the āchildrenā (these acts of abuse) of Babylon the Great (false religion) need to be dashed against a wall.
Ya, this here sums up this entire discussion quite nicely. You have staked your arguments to be the complete opposite of what I have to say. So much so that you immediately attribute everything I say to ignorance and religious bias.
If you knew who Dan Carlin is, if you were familiar with his content, and, most especially, if you had listened to the Humane Resources episode, you would understand how utterly ridiculous your statements are.
Everything I have said has been met with either ignoring it, denial, or flat out ignorance. The fact that you immediately dismissed Hardcore History as a āreligious podcastā and still maintain that it āwhitewashesā anything, all without even looking up the podcast (which tops Podcast charts in multiple categories, primarily history) is rich and entirely telling that you are unable to be objective in the slightest in this discussion.
I respect your opinions (I really do), but I canāt continue talking to you as youāre unwilling to even entertain the idea of listening to the āother sideā.
Of course.
And when the bible says all homosexuals must be killed, what metaphor is that? Or is it missed context?
I tend to do that when the person Iām arguing against supports such despicable things.
I looked up dan carlin and he has a some christian podcast called Word Christian Fellowship podcast. But sure, not religious or bias.
Unable to be objective by agreeing with you that slavery was a good thing? Are you listening to yourself?
Are you his publicist or something? Youāre trying really hard so sell his stuff.
It seems your forgot to answer this:
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since itās preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
And then of course thereās all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.
The only time thatās mentioned is once in Leviticus, and was specific to the ancient Israelites under the Mosaic law. Other things that were punishable by death were: adultery, blasphemy, idolatry, witchcraft, woman marrying and falsely claiming to be a virgin, sleeping with an engaged women, etc. At that time the term āJewā was both cultural and religious, there was no difference. If you were a Jew (an Israelite) then you were under that law.
Without getting too much into it, the Bible says that Mosaic law is superceded by the Law Covenant at the time of Jesusā death, and thus is no longer in affect.
The Bible further elaborates about how we should treat anyone.
Josiah 24:15 - āNow if it seems bad to you to serve Jehovah, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve,Ā whether the gods that your forefathers served on the other side of the RiverĀ or the gods of the AmŹ¹orĀ·ites in whose land you are dwelling.Ā But as for me and my household, we will serve Jehovah.ā
If you donāt want to follow the Bible or serve Jehovah, you are free to do so, and no one can make you (according to the Bible itself, but obviously that hasnāt stopped things like the Crusades).
1 Peter 2:17 - āHonor men of all sortsā
Pretty cut and dry.
The reason I ignored this topic before is because it has absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion, which was āthe Bible does not teach tortureā. I havenāt even been advocating the Bible, only talking about that one topic. But like all people who either canāt admit being wrong, or are wilfully ignorant and obstinate, you completely disregarded everything Iāve said and keep going on about other things in the Bible.
Ah, so if I said āeveryone deserves respectā you would argue in favour of treating everyone terribly?
Like I said, if you knew his content from Hardcore History, any of it, you would understand how ridiculous your statement is. But just wait until you find out that some of the greatest minds regarded in science were Christian and believed in God.
Are you genuinely still asserting that I ever said āslavery was a good thingā? At this point youāre either just a troll or just really thick.
No. I suggested his stuff once, and then just kept laughing (not mockingly, I genuinely found it funny) at how absurd your attempts to discredit Hardcore History is, based purely on your bias towards me.
And Iām pretty sure no one ever wants to be poor in the first place. But if wishes were horsesā¦
The sad thing is that you might actually think I believe that, despite every rational attempt at genuine dialogue on my part. Makes me wonder if you even read everything that I wrote, and have just been assuming.
The Bible says homosexuality is displeasing to God because itās not how he intended romantic relationships to be. But it also says sex (of any kind) outside of marriage is also not ok. The big factor that people miss is that the Bible says to āhate what is badā, it never says āhate who is badā. You can hate the things someone does, but you should always treat them with respect, and even to love them as your neighbour.
But all of this is really relevant to the discussion about slavery in the Bible, right? It doesnāt have anything to do with the fact that you canāt argue the topic about slavery in the Bible on its own merit, is it?
Surely you wouldnāt try to discredit the source material in order to undermine your opponents arguments. Not you, never.
Anyways, Iām done with this discussion. You can reply if you like. Iāll read it, but I wonāt reply if you keep misrepresenting what Iāve said and try to put words in my mouth. If you donāt, then Iām willing to continue.
But otherwise Iāll say nice chatting with you, and take care.
āDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.ā
Matthew 5:17ā18
Itās still in effect according to your prophet and the son of your god, but you surely know more than him.
You said: āThe Bible doesnāt teach dominating and torturing people, for one.ā
I gave to plenty of evidence, from the bible directly, that it teaches dominating and torturing people, you just choose to disregard facts because it does not agree with your narrative, which seems to be an epidemic with you religious types.
That (unlike slavery) is not a despicable things, so I wonāt argue against it. Maybe try understanding my argument before trying (and failing) to come up with a snappy reply.
Again, I wonāt buy any of his content. I donāt care for slavery apoligists.
Iām keenly aware that christians forced their religion on everybody they could when it was acceptable. Thankfully, itās less acceptable now, but we still have ways to go. Thanks for reminding me how christianity pushed back the progess of science and humanity by centuries.
You did quote the wikipedia article that said thatā¦
I looked up his name and his christian podcast came up, I went to his website where he is selling is podcast episodes.
I didnāt need to discredit him, he did that all on his own.
So you just argue for this you donāt belive in and agree with?
This is you, by the way:
And he is a homophobe as well, what a surpriseā¦
I would think you really didnāt need to argue the fact that slavery is a bad thing, but the bible and you seem to disagree.
The arguments was about if the bible teaches to dominate and torture people, by the way, not just about slavery.
I just though that youād agree that slavery counted as dominating and torturing people. How wrong I was.
Well, if the āsource materialā is a supposedly supernatural book and religion, and a pastorās podcast for that religion, I really donāt need to undermine it, it already undermined itself.
How brave of you to leave an argument you lost.
I donāt misrepresent what you said, youāre just insinuating I did, becuase you realized your arguments sound really bad when you put them out there.