dalaman:


You sabi lie. Which servant by agreement?


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46

So buying slaves and treating them as property is servant by agreement abI. Wuna sabi tell lies for Jesus oo.

DoctorAlien:
So far so good, no "atheist" has been able to tell us why they cling to moral absolutes, when they can't even tell who declared them absolute.

Conclusion: atheism is a very illogical ism?

felixomor:


Give me the king james version.

dalaman:


Is King James version the only English translation of the bible? I have already given you what is inside the bible. As usual I expect the normal baaa baaa baaa meh meh meh cries from you.

felixomor:


Hahahaha.
What stops somebody like u from interpreting the bible to suit your argument?
Absolutely nothing.
So give me the king james....

I am waiting

randomperson:

U need king James, go and get it yourself. He already made his point, if you want to counter that point, get the verse yourself... U are just stalling in defeat

felixomor:


Quiet.
What u r calling slavery(biblical servant by agreement ) is not the slavery that people in africa were being kidnapped to europe and America without conscent for.

Dont tie things up from two completely different eras to create confusion.

randomperson:

Please show the bible verse that says that slavery is by agreement.

dalaman:


Moral absolutes were declared by humans. Rape is wrong because it inflicts pains on the victims. Human beings have the ability to sell reflect and empathize with others, that is why over the years we evolve some moral absolutes. Morality must be learned.

DoctorAlien:


Humans cannot declare moral absolutes because rapists don't agree that rape is bad. I can choose to state emphatically now that rape is not bad. Just because one random individual is of the opinion that rape is bad, and then 999 999 more people coincidentally are of the same opinion does not convert what could have been a relative(desisting from rape) into an absolute.

If I say that rape is not bad, and I find 2 500 752 rapists who agree with me that rape is not bad, to us(our group of human beings), rape is not bad. But then, is rape really good?

felixomor:

Allow him to wobble. Even those atheists smarter than him dodged the question.

Pastafarian:
It seems that our Christian apologists is arguing that slavery wasn't the thing that God was telling the Israelites they could partake in, but indentured servitude. I think the Bible makes it pretty clear that it actually is slavery. (I mean, "You may beat your indentured servants so long as they can get up after a couple of days" and "You may make those from foreign lands indentured servants for life" doesn't really make sense if the "indentured servants" can just quit.)

I guess the point in denying that slavery was allowed by God in the Old Testament is to circumvent the realization that the Most Moral, All-Powerful and Perfect Being thought it was okay at any point in time. Our Christian apologists very well can't decry slavery (which they've made clear that they think is wrong) if God wouldn't, as they would be putting their own morality before God. So not only did God decide to allow slavery, but it is supposedly the most moral thing that could be decided , otherwise God would not have allowed it.

They say that without true religion, people would do despicable things. The advocates of true religion use it to rationalize despicable things and fail to consider them to be despicable. They are mandated from above, after all.

There is not one item of fact or morality or wisdom in the bible that is outside the common understanding of the humans who wrote it 2000 to 3000 years ago.


Given only the knowledge of our time, and tiny amount of compassion, if you could go back 3000 years, what wisdom or knowledge would you have included? Owning people is wrong? Keeping sex slaves is wrong? Disease is caused by germs, so keep wounds clean? Earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics, not gay sex? The male not the female determines the gender of a child, so don't beat your wife to death if she produces a daughter when you want a son? The list goes on and on? Why didn't the perfect, all-knowing god mention any of these things?

felixomor:


Why dont u just stick to your landlord moniker.
Why are u posting with different monikers on the same thread?
By the way, why are u guys scared of using the king james bible?
Its just something I have noticed.
Why?

DoctorAlien:


Humans cannot declare moral absolutes because rapists don't agree that rape is bad. I can choose to state emphatically now that rape is not bad. Just because one random individual is of the opinion that rape is bad, and then 999 999 more people coincidentally are of the same opinion does not convert what could have been a relative(desisting from rape) into an absolute.

If I say that rape is not bad, and I find 2 500 752 rapists who agree with me that rape is not bad, to us(our group of human beings), rape is not bad. But then, is rape really good?

Pastafarian:


can't you think a bit deeper than the shallow thinking you're doing right now? why did Jonbellion use notjonbellion?

felixomor:

Dont bring jonbellion into this. You r not him. Jonbellion shows a better sense of integrity. Yours has a foundation of falsehood.

Pastafarian:


can't you think a bit deeper than the shallow thinking you're doing right now? why did Jonbellion use notjonbellion?

felixomor:


Hahahaha.
What stops somebody like u from interpreting the bible to suit your argument?
Absolutely nothing.
So give me the king james....

I am waiting

DoctorAlien:
So far so good, no "atheist" has been able to tell us why they cling to moral absolutes, when they can't even tell who declared them absolute, and what authority the person/group of persons have to do so. Also, no atheist has been able to tell us why the laws of logic exist, and how the laws came about, and why they use the laws of logic, how humans could possibly know about the laws and why the laws of logic are universal, binding, immaterial and unchanging.

Conclusion: atheism is a very illogical and inconsistent ism?

DoctorAlien:
It's a waste of time arguing with some unintelligent people, really. How can a simple question be asked, and somebody who claims to be intellectually sound will start answering another thing?

Chai! Please, before you attempt to answer my question, make sure you understand what a moral absolute is. It is not a rule enforced by man.

randomperson:

Believe me, he will like to think deeper but unfortunately he can't... Someone who spends so much time on nairaland and can't deduce why some people use alternative monikers

dalaman:


Humans have done it already. We have a few groups of people that we have chosen to serve as our law makers. Once they deliberate and make laws we have to accept them whether we agree with them or not. Once the law makers say rape is wrong it is binding on all people that live in that society. That's how all laws were made. Before the religious institutions were used to make and enforce laws, now we don't use them anymore. Discriminating against gays in the wet is an example I an think of. It is now on the same level with racism. I know many people living in the West that detest gays and will happily discriminate against them, but they can't because a few law makers sat down and made it the law that gays must be accepted and not descrininated against.

Majority of the American people living in the South were totally against civil rights and equality when the civil rights act was passed into law. A few law makers passed it and it became law. Blacks had the same rights as whites despite the fact that majority of the white were totally against it. Racism open racism and segregation became a crime in the US after the civil rights law was passed by law makers including those from the south whose constitutents were against it.

dalaman:


The NLT is a recognized English translation of the bible. Keep crying. Baaa baa baa ...meh meh meh.

Pastafarian:
Exodus 12:43-45 (NRSV)
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised; 45
no bound or hired servant may eat of it.

Leviticus 22:10-11 (NRSV)
10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; 11 but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food.


These passages show that there is a difference between someone who is hired, someone who is a bonded servant, and someone who is bought, paid for, and owned. These are laws for priests. If the Bible had a problem with people owning other people, why couldn't it at least ban the priesthood from owning slaves?

dalaman:


The NLT is a recognized English translation of the bible. Keep crying. Baaa baa baa ...meh meh meh.

dalaman:
Who enforces rape as a rule?

Pastafarian:


there's a reason Sonofluc1fer said Felixomor is proof of his god because only his god can make him cope with such a low level of intelligence

DoctorAlien:


Ewoo! See an entirely unrelated and unintelligent question.

Baba, please go. You're confused.