jmoore:


Comprehension demands you understand CONTEXT and not just use words.

jmoore:



Comprehension demands you understand CONTEXT and not just use words.



Debt Slavery as it is described in Israelite law, was a way in which a family could deal with debt. Imagine
that you are an ancient Israelite—the head of a household. You spend all day farming and keeping a small flock of sheep and goats, helped by everyone in
your extended household. What do you do if you have a
bad year, and are unable to feed your family? The answer is that you borrow from someone who has enough surplus grain (or some other commodity) to lend you. Under Israelite law, this loan would be interest-free (Lev 25:35–37), but you still need to pay back.what you borrowed.

But now imagine that you have another bad year,
and so you need to borrow again. Year after year, your debt accumulates, and you have no way to pay it
back. Unless your intention is to default on the loan—effectively stealing from the one who lent to you at no
interest rather than selling his grain—your only option is to repay your debt with your only means available,
the labor of the people in your household.

KnownUnknown:


Does this sound like “debt slavery”? Put it in whatever context you wish:

Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

jmoore:


You are free to believe your MISUNDERSTANDING.


Someone with your mindset will say football clubs are using players as slaves because they sell player to other clubs and buy players from other clubs.

KnownUnknown:

CHUG CHUG forgives you for calling me stupid.

jmoore:


You are free to believe your MISUNDERSTANDING.

Someone with your mindset will say football clubs are using players as slaves because they sell player to other clubs and buy players from other clubs.

jmoore:
Dumb atheists asking where slavery is condemned in the Bible.
No wonder the bible said fools say there is no God.



"This is why it's so important to understand scripture in its proper context, as well as the culture back then.

The stealing and selling of human beings like the racial slavery that we know of, was forbidden according to Old Testament law. Exodus 21:16 says, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

In almost every instance, the kind of slavery that was authorized was debt-slavery, where an individual would offer to work for someone for 6 years to pay off a debt. Employer/Employee. It would be like you coming to work for me to pay off all of your debts, in which you'd be treated like family and provided with room & board. If they were mistreated, the masters (employers) were punished.

AS YOU CAN SEE, CLEARLY NOT THE SAME SLAVERY OF MY ANCESTORS. Although slave masters in the 1800s would try to use the Bible to justify racial slavery, common sense would tell you that they didn't know Christ.

They didn't have the Holy Spirit, they didn't "love thy neighbor", and they did everything opposite of what Christ said to do.

But today, many black people who are spiritually lost try to use that slavery narrative as an excuse to not know Jesus. The devil has sold them lies in exchange for their souls." - Desmond Morris

kingxsamz:


Yes, when it comes to religion, theists are not intelligent. They're intelligent when it comes to other aspects of life they're good at, but when religion is involved they have to throw logic away and defend the most irrational things.
Telling me humans came from a white woman who also came from a white man's ribs, who also came from dust is very unintelligent, even if you're a scientist.

BRATISLAVA:


Just the way theists believe atheists aren't intelligent when it comes to religion. They're intelligent in other aspects of life they are good at, but once it comes to religion they throw away their logic and defend their sensory organs and objects (organs which vary in sensitivity from person to person and and objects/instruments which can't weigh a soul).

Tell me humans came from a sea shell, grew scales as they were fish too, shed them and became apes then black humans who became white, only after surviving the heat and pressure in the nebula that made the universe as atoms that miraculously became cells in a process that can never be replicated again, conveniently, even as a non-scientist.

Kobojunkie:
I am certain you know very well that isn't true at all, but you just want to pretend it so instead.

kingxsamz:


Bro, you don't know what you're saying and you don't need to repeat what I said.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god and has nothing to do with the big bang, evolution, how human life began, or "fish from the sea" or whatever that is. Being an atheist just means you don't believe in a god, simple as that. Anyone can be an atheist. Both the intelligent and the dumb can be atheist. Even children. So my point still stands. You don't need to be knowledgeable in science to be an atheist. Say something else please.

How does it make any sense that humanity came from a white woman who came from a white man's ribs, who also came from dust?
When you answer that, let me know.

BRATISLAVA:

I know you don't know what you're saying and I will repeat it so that you can hear exactly how you sound.

Where did I state that you must be knowledgeable in science to be an atheist? Say something else, please.

It is only atheists who think they are more intelligent, logical or exposed to the world. People will be people and believe in whatever they will, irregardless of religion. Human make up is distinct from religion, something atheists find hard to understand, something theists can understand with ease, so if atheists are equated with having no morals and being unrealistic, then they are simply enjoying the same bigotry they wield as intellect.

BRATISLAVA:
Why do atheists always equate theists with not being educated or intelligent?

BRATISLAVA:

I know you don't know what you're saying and I will repeat it so that you can hear exactly how you sound.

Where did I state that you must be knowledgeable in science to be an atheist? Say something else, please.

It is only atheists who think they are more intelligent, logical or exposed to the world. People will be people and believe in whatever they will, irregardless of religion. Human make up is distinct from religion, something atheists find hard to understand, something theists can understand with ease, so if atheists are equated with having no morals and being unrealistic, then they are simply enjoying the same bigotry they wield as intellect.

hopefulLandlord:
Notice something about this post? notice how he used weasel words like he were a politician then went on from that weasel words to certainty and specifics later. look at the two texts I'd bold in this quote and see the wilful dishonesty



Notice how he moved from "Almost every instance" which sounds like he's making a huge point but it's actually wilful ignorance at best or close to meaningless at worst.
To prove this just look at this statement "Almost every instance of ball crossing over the goal line gets called a goal" which isn't really lying but as someone who watches football a lot you'd quickly realise so many goals are called off in games due to a variety of reasons and these called off goals has huge impact on how the match turns out so that statement is actually close to meaningless

as for the next text I bolded you see how he made a conclusion from a close to meaningless term in the first bolded to making a certain conclusion from there.


From "Almost every instance" to "now you clearly see"


Now let's face the "Almost every instance" part and see if what he's saying is true which honestly it is but lacks context. he says the slavery then was to work for 6 years to pay off debt but here is what he's hoping you won't pay attention to some words that change the entire meaning. Exodus 21:2 is what he's quoting and this is it “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."

Great! this guy has slammed this argument. let's go home he's won already but wait! "Hebrew"? why is there that specific word there and why did he pretend like this extended to everyone? So this only applied to Hebrew slaves? what about non Hebrew ones? obviously their fate would be much worse than Hebrew slaves but let's move on and read the next verses and see a loophole an all knowing god gave. exodus 21:4-6
"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
“But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."

hmmmmm! so you see what this"almost every instance" is ignoring?

Now let's get down to other slaves. let's look at Leviticus 25:44
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." hmm okay let's now move to 46 "and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life"
6 years indeed huh? I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the unbiased that 6 years nonsense is hogwash!

now let's move on to another nonsense he said. "If they were mistreated, the masters (employers) were punished."
Exodus 21:20-21
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

"Mistreated" in this context is huge dishonesty. it's like saying beating someone to death as "mistreating" and while it probably falls under mistreatment, when you hear the words mistreat does your mind jump to "kill"? I mean if I say Janet got mistreated by her stepfather does any part of your brain entertain the probability that Jane is 6 fit under from the mistreatment? you probably expect an alive Janet with physical bruises on her body not a forking corpse! Also the fact that the Bible is silent on what happens to the master if he kills his slave is telling and I'd wager he won't be put to death for murder




NB: notice how me, a nonchristian, is quoting Bible verses that can be independently verified by anyone reading this while the so-called Christians here don't?

xproducer:
+++ Morals, while objectively commendable and encouraged, are simply not good enough to reconcile a person back to GOD since the fall and physical + spiritual demise of mankind in Genesis! We need the Savior, the CHRIST, the Lord YESHUA! (Acts 4:12). This is the truth!

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." - Isaiah 64:6
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" - Romans 3:23

1 Only fools think there is no God. People like that are evil and do terrible things. They never do what is right.
2 God looks down from heaven to see if there is anyone who is wise, anyone who looks to him for help.
3 But everyone has turned away from him. Everyone has become evil. No one does anything good. No, not one person!
4 Those who are evil treat my people like bread to be eaten. And they never ask for God’s help. Don’t they understand what they are doing? - Psalm 53 vs 1 - 3

8 Lord, show me your right way of living and make it easy for me to follow. People are looking for my weaknesses, so show me how you want me to live.
9 My enemies never tell the truth. They only want to destroy people. Their words come from mouths that are like open graves. They use their lying tongues to deceive others.[a]
10 Punish them, God! Let them be caught in their own traps. They have turned against you, so punish them for their many crimes. - Psalm 5 vs 8 - 10

1 Lord, save me from people who are evil. Protect me from those who are cruel,
2 from those who plan to do evil and always cause trouble.
3 Their words are as harmful as the fangs of a snake, as deadly as its venom. Selah
4 Lord, save me from the wicked! Protect me from these cruel people who plan to hurt me.
5 These proud people are trying to trap me. They spread nets to catch me; they set traps in my path. Selah - Psalm 140 vs 1 - 5

10 My son, those who love to do wrong will try to trick you. Don’t listen to them.
11 They will say, “Come with us. Let’s hide and beat to death anyone who happens to walk by.
12 We will swallow them whole, as the grave swallows the dying.
13 We will take everything they have and fill our houses with stolen goods.
14 So join us, and you can share everything we get.”
15 My son, don’t follow them. Don’t even take the first step along that path.
16 They run to do something evil, and they cannot wait to kill someone. - Proverbs 1 vs 10 - 15

1 Look, the Lord’s power is enough to save you. He can hear you when you ask him for help.
2 It is your sins that separate you from your God. He turns away from you when he sees them.
3 That’s because your hands are covered with blood from the people you murdered. You tell lies and say evil things.
4 You can’t be trusted, even in court. You lie about each other and depend on false arguments to win your cases. You create pain and produce wickedness.
5 You hatch evil, like eggs from a poisonous snake. Anyone who eats the eggs will die. And if you break one of them open, a poisonous snake will come out. Your lies are like spider webs.
6 They cannot be used for clothes, and you cannot cover yourself with them. Your hands are always busy sinning and hurting others.
7 Your feet run toward evil. You are always ready to kill innocent people. You think of nothing but evil. Everywhere you go you cause trouble and ruin.
8 You don’t know how to live in peace. You don’t do what is right and fair. You are crooked, and anyone who lives like that will never know true peace. - Isaiah 59 vs 1 - 8

1 Deep in the hearts of the wicked a voice tells them to do wrong. They have no respect for God.
2 They lie to themselves. They don’t see their own faults, so they are not sorry for what they do.
3 Their words are wicked lies. They have stopped doing anything wise or good.
4 They make wicked plans in bed at night. They choose a way of life that does no good. And they never say no to anything evil. - Psalm 36 vs 1 - 4

KnownUnknown:


And it’s clear by what they wrote that they had no problems with slavery and thought it moral. Note Ephesians Chapter 6 as posted for a clear example.

TMTR:
The last time I checked, the people that brought Christianity to Africa were responsible for the slave trade, killed a lot of leaders who opposed them, raped our resources and women but I am supposed to be the bad one without morals for not believing in their religion

Please make it make sense

BRATISLAVA:
Why do atheists always equate theists with not being educated or intelligent?

TMTR:
The last time I checked, the people that brought Christianity to Africa were responsible for the slave trade, killed a lot of leaders who opposed them, raped our resources and women but I am supposed to be the bad one without morals for not believing in their religion

Please make it make sense

kkins25:


The problem is most of you aren't. Atheist, on the other hand, are aware of their ignorance, that's why if you ask me, "how did the world start?" I'd say, I DON'T KNOW.

A theist, however, seems to not know God and knows God, at the same time. A conversation with the average theist, and you'd find just how unintelligible most people are.

The Atheist aren't necessarily more intelligible, it's just that, the very fact that they are willing to learn from ground zero proves their willingness and resolve to learn. That, to me, gives them a score in favor of superior intelligence.

If theist were intelligent, would they cue at the gates of a church like that owned by TBJ, huh?

Intelligent theist know and recognize that religion is on of the many boths which humans built to navigate the waters of life. Unfortunately, such group of theists are mostly educated in philosophy, and make up about 0.0001% of theist.

PS: Intelligence here isn't general IQ, even though, studies show Atheist to have better scores. Plus, studies have shown that theist tend to have an underdeveloped frontal lobe. As in, the front part of their brain begins to die due to religion. However, intelligence is a spectrum. Here, i'd define it as the ability to identify and solve problems, alter their beliefs in favor of more credible and productive ones, and ability to see the world through the eyes of humanity.

Another PS: Thiest here refers to those who cling to Abrahamic religions.

BRATISLAVA:



Epistles for and about yourself.

Your intelligence is lacking if this is the best you can come up with.

efficiencie:


Last time I checked Stalin was an Atheist and he killed millions, Mao Tse Tung was an Atheist and he killed millions. Lenin was an Atheist and he killed millions. Atheists have no moral compass. Morality to an Atheist is subjective. If you accept that we evolved from inanimate matter then there is no purpose to existence. No purpose means there is no objective way of determining wrong doing. Hedonistic functionality replaces objective morality for an atheist. If killing babies play a functional role in society, atheists will support it. If using human subjects are lab rats will help create a serum of longevity atheists will support it provided they are not the lab rats. Atheists

kkins25:


Again, you see why i say, theist fail to use common sense more often than not. All you have to do is look around you, even our ancestors were more intelligent that you lot. At least, they didn't have the knowledge we have. Even then, religion, was their way of life and no different from their culture.

Today, somebody with mental problem is going to church hoping pastor will cast the demon out. Do you see why i say y'all are the dumbest set of "religionist" on the planet?

I even told you that studies have revealed that people who subscribe to religious belief lose a part of their brain. It didn't shake you. Of course, the only time you trust science is when you have malaria. After that, brain reboots to default wereyness.



A study was done recently on the level of compassion for their fellow humans, i believe, between Atheist and Christians.

The study showed that although Christians complained more about evil in the world, they didn't act on becoming better or even fighting the evil. ooops, that's just me putting words into the study... The study showed that Atheist are willing to do and currently do more for humanity than Christians.
What the study really wanted to say was "Christians are all hypocrites and selfish." ahhhh....That's more like it. What more would one expect from a bunch of delunded pricks who believe their are the "best" in the world? "God's children." Yeah right!

BRATISLAVA:



I didn't read what you typed, because it will be full of the usual superiority bullshit. A rhetoric question has your panties in such a bunch.

Sort out your issues with the God of Abraham. Your Epistles are a waste

kkins25:

A study was done recently on the level of compassion for their fellow humans, i believe, between Atheist and Christians.

The study showed that although Christians complained more about evil in the world, they didn't act on becoming better or even fighting the evil. ooops, that's just me putting words into the study... The study showed that Atheist are willing to do and currently do more for humanity than Christians.
What the study really wanted to say was "Christians are all hypocrites and selfish." ahhhh....That's more like it. What more would one expect from a bunch of delunded pricks who believe their are the "best" in the world? "God's children." Yeah right!

efficiencie:


You talk of a "study". It would be nice if you shared the study so that we can evaluate how they objectively determined that Christians are not willing to do more than complain about the evil in the world and how Atheists were better in this regard. You know nothing about Christianity. At least it is expected that before you criticize a thing you have to educate yourself about that thing first. Christianity is a system of beliefs founded on the belief that we were once perfect, evil came and we became imperfect and because we are imperfect we need to be saved...and salvation may be a one-time experience or a life-time of struggle. While many have sought to pervert the way of Christianity, this has been the core belief of most Christians. No Christian will tell you he or she has the answer to all questions rather they will point you to the person they keep looking up to for salvation in the person of the LORD Jesus Christ and when Jesus walked this earth all He did was feed the poor, heal the sick, raise the dead, comfort the weary, give direction to the lost, strengthen the weak, stand up to the establishment and give the people hope in a future that was once thought to be impossible. For your education, I will refer you to this link: The Judeo-Christian Foundation of Human Dignity, Personal Liberty, and the Concept of the Person which describes how Judeo-Christian traditions shaped modern societies for good. I am not excusing the many times when the "Christianized Misinformation" was used to by colonists and enslavers but one cannot deny the profound positive impact Christian traditions have had on Western Societies and how it transformed these societies into allure of the world whereas in societies where Christianity and indeed religion as a whole is demonized what follows is carnage, bloodshed, destitution and destruction usually led by a tyrant.

I have always noticed that when a government seeks to do away with GOD they do so so that they have absolute power over the people and anyone who seeks such power often does so to subjugate the people violently and the outcomes will always be hundreds of millions of people dead. The worst atheist will most definitely not want to be born into North Korea so in the end who is the true hypocrite?

efficiencie:


Last time I checked Stalin was an Atheist and he killed millions, Mao Tse Tung was an Atheist and he killed millions. Lenin was an Atheist and he killed millions.

Atheists have no moral compass.

Morality to an Atheist is subjective.

If you accept that we evolved from inanimate matter then there is no purpose to existence.

No purpose means there is no objective way of determining wrong doing.

Hedonistic functionality replaces objective morality for an atheist. If killing babies play a functional role in society, atheists will support it. If using human subjects are lab rats will help create a serum of longevity atheists will support it provided they are not the lab rats. Atheists

kkins25:



A study conducted by researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, found that atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than highly religious people

The study, which was published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, analyzed data from a national survey of more than 1,300 American adults

The findings indicated that compassionate attitudes were linked with how many generous behaviors a person engaged in, and this link was strongest in people who were atheists or only slightly religious, compared with people who were more strongly religious

In another experiment, participants were told that a participant before them had given a portion of their money to a stranger, and those who reported feeling more compassionate and less religious were more generous in this experiment

The study suggests that empathy and compassion are not the only factors at play in religious people's giving, but it does indicate that atheists and agnostics tend to be more compassionate and more inclined to help others when they feel compassionate.

https://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

LordReed:


Just as Christians, Muslims and some other religious groups have indulged in wholesale slaughter. Should we label Christians has having no moral compass because of that? Or rather should we take the individual practice of the religion rather than a blanket condemnation because of the actions of a few?

¹ If you must judge a religion you don't do so by scrutinizing the adherents of the religion because the adherents may and may not have live their lives in strict adherence to the dictates of the religion. In addition, followers of a religion may bring in their subjective bias regarding how they follow the religion. Biases could come in by way of the culture, values, and socio-economic status of the followers. If you must evaluate a religion you have to evaluate the pioneer of the religion and the sacred writings that form the corpus of the religion. So in the case of Christianity, you should be evaluating the person of Jesus Christ and the Bible. In the case of Atheists, we need to evaluate the big daddy of modern materialism: Charles Darwin, and we also need to scrutinize their writings which have gone on to become the key guiding principles of atheism. Saying atheists, Western atheists, do not have a moral compass, does not necessarily mean atheists are not moral but that they do not have a basis to justify their morality and I can argue that their morality is based on Judeao-Christian traditions and values that are the basis of their civilization. In climes where there isn't a similitude of a Judeao-Christian hold, atheists may be completely devoid of any form of morality. This is why no Western atheist will consider himself or herself to be in the same group as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc even though these ugly folks are all atheists as well.



Wrong. They do have a moral compass it just not the one you believe it should be.



Well make up your mind do atheists have no moral compass or is the compass different. It can't be both.



What is fundamental difference between the purpose you perceive a god gave you and the one I created for myself?
² You cannot create a purpose for yourself because you did not create yourself. If you created yourself, you would be assigned the purpose you had in mind that informed your decision to create yourself. The purpose of an entity that has a beginning always comes into existence before that entity is created. This is the case for all of man's infrastructure. From buildings to bridges to social media platforms like www.nairaland.com, anything that has a beginning must have a purpose that was determined before the creation of that thing. This invalidates the whole idea of giving yourself purpose just because you are a sentient being. If you give yourself purpose you are basically abusing yourself because you are assigning a purpose to something that should already have a purpose. This is the origin of all abuse. Now you could give yourself the purpose of being a doctor and starting a hospital to give free care to all but how will you argue against someone else who gives himself the purpose of having a marijuana plantation and smoking weed all day every day till death parts him from his marijuana plantation? You cannot argue against such a person because even you are operating from an invalid position. This is why scientists stumble at the philosophical question: "Why are we here?". A GOD-exclusionary answer to this question is very difficult and the answer to this question will provide the atheist with a purpose for existing. Until scientific materialism answers this question, all atheists have no purpose except the one assigned to them by themselves which amounts to abuse.



There is no objective way, we have to collectively agree on what morality is. Which is why words become powerful they transmit ideas of what morality should be.
³ We cannot collectively agree on what morality should be. Our cultures are so diverse that it is impossible to unify our consciousness of morality. Will a white man prostrate before his parents as a sign of respect? Will an elderly Yoruba man be called by his first name in the community by a 13-year-old? Will the Caucasians welcome the idea of drinking cow blood as a rite of passage in some African cultures? Will a Jew accept that before he can be reconciled with his estranged wife his wife must be married to another who must divorce her before she can be reconciled to her husband as is the case in the Islamic world? So dude it is impossible for us to collectively agree on what morality is without having an arbiter who is outside of our plane of existence.



Yes, functionality is a valid consideration for morality but why do you think it is limited to atheists though? According to your beliefs do you not act in ways that are considered good because of their functionality?
⁴ "Hedonistic functionality" is an intellectual way of saying "Doing what seems right in your eyes". Functionality is great but we all know that functionality has different meanings to different people. Insulin shots are functional for the diabetic but not for the bodybuilder and this is a very innocuous example. Some examples can be more barbaric. Now it is known that in some royal homes or the homes of billionaires, there is this tendency for in-breeding. This is functional to ensure that bloodlines are pure and that familial heritage is indeed kept within the family. But you and I both know we will not do this shit even if we own all the money in the world, right? This is why "hedonistic functionality" will not work as a universal guide to morality because in the end it will not result in a single objectively determined moral code".

efficiencie:


1300 American adults is a bad sample to generalize to the whole world. American adults, Christian or Atheists, have a liberal cultural background that is not the norm in other climes. Your conclusions based on this study can at best only be relevant for the American people. Again did the 1300 sample stratify at least by socio-economic characteristics of wealth and social capital, race, nationality, migrant status, and gender? Also, can you seriously claim that 1300 sample units are representative of a country of over 300 million people? I would like to see the external and internal validity of the sample used. Some researchers these days are being outed for fudging data to achieve crazy effect sizes that go on to become the basis of outlandish hypotheses (See one example here). So I still will not take your conclusion seriously until I see the paper, how the sample was drawn and how it arrived at its conclusions (which is not included in LiveScience website you just shared).

efficiencie:


In the end bro, you need an uncaused first cause that must be responsible for all life and responsible for all morality.