midnight378:

unfortunately for you , the Greek word "δοῦλοι" is here and most other places in the New Testament translated as "slave" or at least "bondservant" .

The Jews did not speak Greek.

midnight378:

After you get a real education, you might have some credibility . You have none now . since you are mostly ignorant of Biblical things, you don't know that there are three times the word is translated as "slave", ..

fallacy ad hominem and Change of Post! Off point.

midnight378:

"Ephesians 6:5 reads,
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters ..

Correction
Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;.

midnight378:

Colossians 3:22 reads,
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything;

Colossians 3:22 reads
Servants, obey in all things your masters accord...

midnight378:

1 Peter 2:18 reads,
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God...

1 Peter 2:18 reads
Servants, be subject to your masters

midnight378:

I forgot nothing . Too bad you forgot that YOU MADE IT AN OLD age debate by making the claim that the first laws were made in Roman law.

And you came to say that there was another place with another older date, thus proving my point that on a certain day men woke up and created legal.

midnight378:

I called on you to do no such thing . You're lying .

Denying your own words now that you have run out ground, eh? See you below

midnight378:
...Oh . all assertions and no evidence. ..

Prove it.
You're not very good at this. Is this your first debate ?
No more unsupported assertions (claims) from you without evidence.
You are dismissed unless you support what you claim with evidence or support . Do you even know what that means ?

Gotcha!

midnight378:

It's "the Roman legal system" not "Roman legal", (when you take English...

Change of Post/ Off point.

midnight378:

this is not a sentence in the English language . It means nothing, and is not referenced.

The Romans do not speak English language as their major language but I understand, this is you confessing that you know nothing on law, as I impliedly told you in the beginning.

Dtruthspeaker:


Which Verse 17?

This one says "ye shall not oppress one another"; Leviticus 25:17

And this is not for Hebrews alone but for everyone in the land of Israel

Thats all you have to say!?

Still not decided if owning another human being as property is immoral, as well as passing it down to your children as inheritance and keeping it for life?
No explanation why you "forgot" to add Leviticus 25:44 to 43? "Forgot" that 43 only applies to Hebrews (and still you can trick them into permanent slavery!), and all other people can be enslaved?
Still no correction that only Hebrew slaves have to be set free after 7 years, and even they can be tricked into permanent slavery!?
Still think you had it bad with long working days, while your god would have allowed your aunt to beat you to death, as long as you survive the first three days? Still think this is "beautiful"?

What is your next excuse going to be, not having to embarrass yourself by actually responding to me!?

There you have it: Endtimer and Dtruthspeaker...

Two morons who have no clue about basic terminology in the field of ethics (objective morality vs subjective morality)!
They dont even know what their own morality (their invisible friends´) is classified as*.
They cant even say "owning another human being as property is bad". Yet they smugly point out their overt racism, while claiming to have some sort of moral superiority over other cultures!

They think they can school us. On what? How to be a shitty human being? LOLOLOL! They have the chutzpah to tell us we are "borrowing" from their morality. If that were the case, if i had only part of their ignorance and bigotry, i would put a bullet through my temple. At least i wouldnt go to an online forum just to humiliate myself so embarrassingly like they did!!!

* Personally, i think their position is amoral. They are no moral actors at all. They have no moral compass of their own at all. They claim to follow the moral compass of someone else, a compass that hardly points toward a certain direction itself, as killing is bad while genocide is ordered nevertheless.

midnight378:

Wrong.
If he even "permitted it" (and being an almighty god),

Making another allegation is not a valid response.

midnight378:

BTW, your English is very poor.
You don't know how to use a grammar checker ?
(And someone here said you are a lawyer )

Ad hominem!

The following is a partial list taken from Wikipedia's list of ancient legal codes in chronological order:

Code of Urukagina (2380–2360 BCE)
Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BCE). Copies with slight variations found in Nippur, Sippar and Ur
Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BCE)
Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BCE)
Babylonian law - Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE in middle chronology)
Hittite laws, also known as the 'Code of the Nesilim' (developed c. 1650–1500 BCE, in effect until c. 1100 BCE)
Law of Moses / Torah (10th–6th century BCE) - Halakha (Jewish religious law, including biblical law and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions)
Assyrian law, also known as the Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) or the Code of the Assyrians/Assura (developed c. 1450–1250 BCE, oldest extant copy c. 1075 BCE)
Draconian constitution (late 7th century BCE)
Solonian Constitution (early 6th century BCE)
Gortyn code (5th century BCE)
Twelve Tables of Roman Law (451 BCE)

Dtruthspeaker, can you explain how 10 sets of laws that came hundreds of years BEFORE the Romans, were copied from the Romans, ehn!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes

midnight378:


Goodness !
And here I thought you people believed in redemption and salvation.

LOL

Only in mine! You all can go wherever you want.. if you can get there.

That's what you think it -should- be.....but...you may not be quite as ethnocentric in your pronouncements as those authors were.

Let's explore that. Why do you think it should be your interpretation of that verse, rather than sociopolitical reality of that verse, or some possibility where god itself said it and meant it in explicitly ethnocentric terms?

Why, further down, should we not oppress each other -or- anyone else? Is there something wrong with oppressing people, any people? What?

Dtruthspeaker:


Which Verse 17?

This one says "ye shall not oppress one another"; Leviticus 25:17

And this is not for Hebrews alone but for everyone in the land of Israel

chryssanthe:
The following is a partial list taken from Wikipedia's list of ancient legal codes in chronological order:..

As long as they have dates, it proves my case that men created legal.

And I simply stood on the Roman line because they are oldest in today's present legal world. The others are lost and become stories.

1000WaysToLive:
That's what you think it -should- be.....but...you may not be quite as ethnocentric in your pronouncements as those authors were.

Let's explore that. Why do you think it should be your interpretation of that verse, rather than sociopolitical reality of that verse, or some possibility where god itself said it and meant it in explicitly ethnocentric terms?

Because, since God is Good, then that is His interpretation!

1000WaysToLive:

Why, further down, should we not oppress each other -or- anyone else? Is there something wrong with oppressing people, any people? What?

That is why I love Christ's Answer. If you think it is good to be oppressed, then oppress.

But know this, when thou art oppressed, ye have no right to remedy, for thou didst agree to the law of oppression.

Dtruthspeaker:


I denied it and you saw I told you to blame your evil bible for that.

Stop bullshitting. I am an atheist. I have no bible.
So we are finished, you deny what the bible clearly and plainly states: That you can own another human being as property, and pass it down to your children.
You are a liar. Your god doesnt like liars!
Want to post your beloved KJV rules for slavery? ...you know the part where it says how "they shall be your possession" or "be your bondmen forever"? Have you even read your BS KJV bible? Or maybe Exodus 21, where is explains in painful detail how to enslave your fellow Hebrews, forever!?

Having denied that God did not command the doing of slavery, therefore the reasonable question is the good (moral) He was doing?

Do you english?

Answer: Providing Law to control and regulate the labour relationship.

Ah, now its not slavery, its a "labor relationship". Want to be my "employee", so i can beat the shit out of you and pass you down to my children, as condoned by your bible!?
So that i can have your children as sex slaves?

Why is it that your god could order "thou shalt not eat shellfish", but was impotent to say "dont own other human beings as property"?

You call paying off of debts owed in a contract immoral?

I call owning a human being as property immoral
You dont!
and you deny its in the Bible!!
That makes you not only a liar but an immoral thug!!!

That clearly proves how deficient your moral meter is!

I am not defending slavery, you are!
I am not denying my holy book condones it, you are!
But i have another meter, that just went crazy when i read your dishonest BS!
It's called an IRONY meter!!

As I said, your moral meter does not work else you would have seen how people are willingly offering themselves up to serve other human beings. No force or duress. Even joyfully!

You dont even know why you are an immoral thug, right? Just as you dont have the faintest clue about (objective) morality!!
What are you doing here, parading your ignorance and dishonesty around? Is that a kink of yours!?

1000WaysToLive:
Agreed at bolded..but how do you, or we, know which laws are the good laws?

Simple!

If The Law was applied to you, would you call it good!

Eg The Law on Contracts says all agreements must be upheld (pacta sunt servanda), so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

Dtruthspeaker:


The Jews did not speak Greek.



fallacy ad hominem and Change of Post! Off point.



Correction
Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;.



Colossians 3:22 reads
Servants, obey in all things your masters accord...



1 Peter 2:18 reads
Servants, be subject to your masters



And you came to say that there was another place with another older date, thus proving my point that on a certain day men woke up and created legal.



Denying your own words now that you have run out ground, eh? See you below



Gotcha!



Change of Post/ Off point.



The Romans do not speak English language as their major language but I understand, this is you confessing that you know nothing on law, as I impliedly told you in the beginning.

LMAO.
Total bullshit.
Everyone know *some" Jews did not speak greek, however, unfortunately for you, Hellenization of the Levant was in process, and in fact they did speak Greek.

"Created legal" means nothing in English. Can't you get a grammar checker ?
I'm confessing nothing.
Lying for Jebus is still lying.
Lying is against your "natural law".
Are you always this evil ?

I PROVED that what you said about Roman law was false. Get over it.
Whether they spoke English is irrelevant. Are you always this bad at debate ? Historians know when law codes were established. You were 100 % incorrect.
What ? Your Jebus has not granted you the humility and grace to admit when you're wrong ?
What a fucking hypocrite. As always ... and you are simply the latest in a VERY long line, you people are fake hypocrites.
Praise Jesus I actually don't have to deal with anyone as fake and evil as you are.
Crawl back into you hole.
LMAO. You are dismissed. Buh Bye.

Dtruthspeaker:


As long as they have dates, it proves my case that men created legal.

And I simply stood on the Roman line because they are oldest in today's present legal world. The others are lost and become stories.

Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.
"Men created laws".
No shit Sherlock. LMAO

The dates also prove you were WRONG about Roman laws being first.
LMAO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Isn't that just another opportunity to ask the same question?

You prefer an interpretation because it is good, but what does that mean? Good by reference to what? Is god subject to some fact or reality of what is good?

-In answer to your question, you'd have to be more specific. There are lots of laws, not all of them are good laws, so, conceivably a law being applied to me could go either way.

I don;t..for example, believe that not all contracts must be can be or even should be upheld. Neitherdo our legal systems.

There's a category called unenforceables.

You can't..for example, sell yourself into slavery, and no court here will hear any garbage from a man coming to them with such a contract seeking redress from you to that effect.

Dtruthspeaker:


Simple!

If The Law was applied to you, would you call it good!

Eg The Law on Contracts says all agreements must be upheld (pacta sunt servanda), so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

Dtruthspeaker:


Because, since God is Good, then that is His interpretation!



That is why I love Christ's Answer. If you think it is good to be oppressed, then oppress.

But know this, when thou art oppressed, ye have no right to remedy, for thou didst agree to the law of oppression.

LOL

i love it when the Jesus freaks give up on debate and just start their preaching bullshit.

Dtruthspeaker:


Simple!

If The Law was applied to you, would you call it good!

Eg The Law on Contracts says all agreements must be upheld (pacta sunt servanda), so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

Snort.
He thinks if he says it in Latin, then he's all special.
LMAO.

chryssanthe:

Stop bullshitting. I am an atheist. I have no bible.

Immaterial! As long as you are raising the issue from a publicly known document generally called the Bible which has both the good and bad one.

chryssanthe:

So we are finished, you deny what the bible clearly and plainly states:

I deny what you and your bible said

chryssanthe:

That you can own another human being as property, and pass it down to your children.
You are a liar. Your god doesnt like liars!
Want to post your beloved KJV rules for slavery? ...you know the part where it says how "they shall be your possession" or "be your bondmen forever"?

Every one of us have a house where a certain houseboy/housegirl has been serving the owner of the house and his family and even the children of the servant continue in it. And all visitors thought that they were family members for they were treated very well, as God Commanded

So, nothing here.

chryssanthe:

Have you even read your BS KJV bible? Or maybe Exodus 21, where is explains in painful detail how to enslave your fellow Hebrews, forever!?

Because you atheist are void of good (morals) you can not see good. Which is why you do not see that Exodus 21 is the same normal contract of domestic service we all have today. A houseboy comes in alone and goes out alone. If he marries in the house, then he and his wife go out etc

But as you people are void of morals, you can not see this is the very we all do, whether the Bible said so or not!

chryssanthe:

Ah, now its not slavery, its a "labor relationship".

From the beginning I did say Labour Law.

chryssanthe:

Want to be my "employee", so i can beat the shit out of you and pass you down to my children, as condoned by your bible!?

See your evil mind? Isn't this devil speaking? Do we not say atheists are evil?

chryssanthe:

I call owning a human being as property immoral
You dont!

And yet you willingly offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to slave for NNPC, Chevron, Davido's house etc, never thinking for a microsecond that this was immoral.

Do you see now that your morality button does not work?

1000WaysToLive:


-In answer to your question, you'd have to be more specific. There are lots of laws, not all of them are good laws, so, conceivably a law being applied to me could go either way.

I laid ONLY ONE LAW for you to determine whether it is good or evil to you, to wit "Pay for services rendered/work done".

so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

midnight378:

The dates also prove you were WRONG about Roman laws being first.
LMAO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Rubbish. I was not making a case on the Romans being first but I understand, you are trying to console yourself.

1000WaysToLive:
...Is the source of morality what some subject says, what some society says,

Or facts about a matter under consideration?

What do you think?...

Where there is Law (Morality) then there is The Lawmaker.

The Law can not make itself!

midnight378:


Snort.
He thinks if he says it in Latin, then he's all special.
LMAO.

midnight378:


LOL

i love it when the Jesus freaks give up on debate and just start their preaching bullshit.

Meaning! You have nothing to say.

midnight378:


Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.
"Men created laws".
No shit Sherlock. LMAO

The dates also prove you were WRONG about Roman laws being first.
LMAO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Yes, and it wasnt even part of the Roman law. Its just a modern concept, cloaked in Latin, the language of law and medicine.
But why would Dtruthspeaker know any of that?
He is dumb as a pole, and a liar.

-and before you posted the bolded, people would have simply assumed you understood the difference between employment and property.

Just think, you'll never get that back again.

It will color everyones perception of you, and harm whatever very important message you came here to deliver..which doesn't appear to have anything to do with morality.

Think that might be bad?

Dtruthspeaker:


Immaterial! As long as you are raising the issue from a publicly known document generally called the Bible which has both the good and bad one.



I deny what you and your bible said



Every one of us have a house where a certain houseboy/housegirl has been serving the owner of the house and his family and even the children of the servant continue in it. And all visitors thought that they were family members for they were treated very well, as God Commanded

So, nothing here.



Because you atheist are void of good (morals) you can not see good. Which is why you do not see that Exodus 21 is the same normal contract of domestic service we all have today. A houseboy comes in alone and goes out alone. If he marries in the house, then he and his wife go out etc

But as you people are void of morals, you can not see this is the very we all do, whether the Bible said so or not!



From the beginning I did say Labour Law.



See your evil mind? Isn't this devil speaking? Do we not say atheists are evil?



And yet you willingly offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to slave for NNPC, Chevron, Davido's house etc, never thinking for a microsecond that this was immoral.

Do you see now that your morality button does not work?

chryssanthe:


Yes, and it wasnt even part of the Roman law. Its just a modern concept, cloaked in Latin, the language of law and medicine.
But why would Dtruthspeaker know any of that?
He is dumb as a pole, and a liar.

Says idiots who never knew the difference between legal and law and that legal is not Law.

Dtruthspeaker:

And yet you willingly offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to slave for NNPC, Chevron, Davido's house etc, never thinking for a microsecond that this was immoral.

Do you see now that your morality button does not work?

Contractual work in a free market isn't possessing someone. It's possessing the fruit of their work not their person. A slave isn't just a person working for another one. It's also a distinct legal status. A slave cannot break the bond that links them to their master, but a contractual worker can. A slave has no right to ownership yet an employee does. A slave can be sold, traded, gifted and inherited like any other piece of property on the whims of a master such is not the case for a slave. A slave as a different level of legal protection and civil liberties which is not the case for an employee. By attempting to shield your favorite book from criticism, you are producing apologetics for one of the worst type of systematic abuse and oppression man has designed. Know you battle. Nobody in our day and age would tolerate the morality and legal systems of the Ancient Hebrew. It's simply too harsh, authoritarian, unfair, unequal, ineffective and anti-democratic for our sensibilities and our level of education.

Dtruthspeaker:


Immaterial! As long as you are raising the issue from a publicly known document generally called the Bible which has both the good and bad one.



I deny what you and your bible said



Every one of us have a house where a certain houseboy/housegirl has been serving the owner of the house and his family and even the children of the servant continue in it. And all visitors thought that they were family members for they were treated very well, as God Commanded

So, nothing here.



Because you atheist are void of good (morals) you can not see good. Which is why you do not see that Exodus 21 is the same normal contract of domestic service we all have today. A houseboy comes in alone and goes out alone. If he marries in the house, then he and his wife go out etc

But as you people are void of morals, you can not see this is the very we all do, whether the Bible said so or not!



From the beginning I did say Labour Law.



See your evil mind? Isn't this devil speaking? Do we not say atheists are evil?



And yet you willingly offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to slave for NNPC, Chevron, Davido's house etc, never thinking for a microsecond that this was immoral.

Do you see now that your morality button does not work?

Oh.....I see your problem
Oh.....I get it now.
You don't know the difference between slavery and employment!


Slavery: The state of being owned by another person. There is no pay. You can be inherited by the children of your owner with no say-so in the matter. You cannot vote. Your children are also born into slavery and become the property of your owner. You have no legal autonomy. The Bible says I could beat you nearly to death without any consequences.

Employment: The state of being paid for your work. You are free to leave and seek other employment or work your way up the pay scale. In most democratic-republics you can vote. Often one goes to a university to major in a specific career to gain employment. You have autonomy. You are a free person.

FemiAjani:

Contractual work in a free market isn't
possessing someone. It's possessing the fruit of their work not their person.

Sorry sir, when a bank or company you work for says you should come in to work at 7:30 and you cannot leave earlier than 4 without their permission, have they not possessed you during those hours?

Are you not their slave for those hours?

Are you free during those hours?

FemiAjani:

A slave isn't just a person working for another one. It's also a distinct legal
status. A slave cannot break the bond that links them to their master,..

Slavery is not backed by Law for every person has his inherent natural rights. And a right to obtain work is not a right to submit to slavery.

It is wicked people who turn employees (servants) to slave, which is why where you find slavery you must find oppression because the slave must be held in by duress.

And where you find duress, you find would find The Law is breached.

Which is why in the bank an employee always has the option of resigning if he finds his working condition oppressive.

And so approaching 800 posts the answer to the OP question "what does a god add to life that cannot be lived without" seems to converge thus: morality.

Absent god, there'd be no morality. The believer would become immoral, and would behave immorally. Set aside the fact that that's what believers already do - behave immorally - the stupendous irony is that WITH a god, their propensity to behave immorally escalates. The believer's greatest moral aspiration is to do god's will. So a believer will try to kill her own children, as commanded by god. A believer will withhold medical treatment from her own children, as directed by god. A believer will enslave others, as commanded by god. And, of course, a believer will hijack a loaded airliner and crash it into an occupied building, as commanded by god. When god's will is the goal to be attained at any cost, there is no limit to the possible destruction a believer will attempt. There is NO restraint.

To believe in religion is so mentally crippling, it makes a believer volatile, incapable of seeing how potentially dangerous he is - and that very incapacity increases the danger. It is the removal of god, not its addition, that improves life's livability.

chryssanthe:


Employment: The state of being paid for your work. You are free to leave and seek other employment

And when an employer deprives an employee his salary and rather raises up guards to prevent the employee from freely leaving, has slavery not commenced, evil one?

chryssanthe:

The Bible says I could beat you nearly to death without any consequences.

And miss Satan, the Bible said "and if a man best"

It did not say "beat a servant" but of course evils like you see it this way after all it is you devils who do it.

Dtruthspeaker:

And yet you willingly offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to slave for NNPC, Chevron, Davido's house etc, never thinking for a microsecond that this was immoral.

Do you see now that your morality button does not work?

what you say is 110 % false.
There are labor standards in the developed world .. and no one who works is possessed by anyone.
When you grow up and can travel, you'll find first-world countries, (who need no gods) do not allow employers to own their employees.

Oh. So now, you're saying you expect them to *have* morality, even though you know they have no gods ?
They have "natural law" according to you, and any normal human works to feed their family.
I think you are on drugs. What are you smoking ?

Nice try at exaggeration and hyperbole. Your desperation is showing.

Dtruthspeaker:


Immaterial! As long as you are raising the issue from a publicly known document generally called the Bible which has both the good and bad one.

Please tell us more about the bad Bible. LOL

Dtruthspeaker:


Says idiots who never knew the difference between legal and law and that legal is not Law.

You need to look up the word "legal", and learn how to use it correctly in English.

Thank you for the Christian response. So Christ-like . Jesus must really love you, speaking that way to his children,
and you claiming to be a steadfast Christian . Such a saint you are.

LMAO