₦airaland Forum

awesomeJ:
There's definitely something wrong with your comprehension of the English language. Quote where I implied that only rice fills a man. if a post is higher than you can digest, why not just be silent rather than embarrass yourself of a public forum. Later now, you'll want to scold your child for failing English, whereas it's only in the blood. Again, quote where I said that only rice fills a man or just in your own interest, stop quoting me.

It's either you have amnesia or you are just naturally mischevious. Read your own post below which suggest the reason why you absolutely believe in Christianity is that the religion has principles which work. The only example of such principles you gave is that you pay your tithe and you have an overwhelming blessing. Then I tried to force little sense into your ______ that I and millions of people in the world don't pay our tithe and we still have overwhelming blessings. So, your hypothesis and conclusions are both wrong.

In case you will still be your arrogant self and twist your own words, I have my own simplest challenge for you: show me ONE benefit (with proof) of being a Christian that is not in any other religion.

awesomeJ:
Someone says, add some colour indicator to a volume of dilute acid, then slowly add some base to the solution, after a while, you'll observe a colour change. You follow the instructions carefully, and you saw the colour change. Would it be difficult for you to figure that what you've been told is true?

The christian faith has its principles. Over the years, you've applying them, and you've been getting results, Would you need anyone but yourself to confirm it trueness and realness to you?

The probability that Christianity is false is ZERO, because it produces results.

If in any slim chance, it turns out not to be the only way to God, I still have nothing lose, so long as I remain sure it's a way.

Tithe is an example. The principle is that if you pay it, you'll have more blessings than you have room for. I pay it, I have overwhelming blessings, which definitely implies that the principle is true, and the underlying faith is as well true.

LightSpirit:
ONCE UPON A TIME, two explorers came to a clearing in the jungle. It was a beautiful place -- thousands and thousands of flowers were blossoming. One of the explorers said, "There must be a gardener tending these flowers, looking after this plot." He was a believer.
The other disagreed and said, "I don't see any gardener here. I don't even see anybody's footprints. And there seems to be no point in making such a beautiful garden in such a dense and deep forest. Who will come to look? Who will enjoy these flowers? Nobody ever passes by. No, there is no gardener. The whole garden is just an accident."

They argued. The second was a nonbeliever, a skeptic. But there was no way to decide who was right, so they pitched their tent and waited for seven days. No gardener ever appeared. The skeptic was very happy. He said, "Look, there is no gardener. It has been proven now." But the believer said, "The gardener is invisible. He comes, but we cannot see him; he comes, but we cannot hear his footsteps. This garden is impossible without a gardener." So they set a barbed wire fence up around the garden. They electrified the wires, they brought bloodhounds, and they patrolled day and night. But nobody ever entered. No shriek was ever heard from the shock of the electricity flowing in the wires. The bloodhounds never gave a cry.

After seven days, the skeptic said. "Finished! Now it is proven beyond doubt that there is no gardener -- visible or invisible." But the believer was not convinced. He said, "The gardener is not only invisible, he is intangible. He has no scent. He is eternally elusive: you cannot catch him by electrified wires, you cannot catch him by bloodhounds, and our eyes cannot see him. But he is -- for certain he is." Now the skeptical friend, in great despair, said, "What happened to your original statement? What is the difference between an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive God, or gardener, and one which is just imaginary, or one which does not exist at all? What is the difference between the two?"

Believers go on talking about an invisible God, skeptical minds go on disproving any possibility of it, and they both seem to be right. Or, they both are wrong. The argument never comes to a conclusion. From the very beginning, the whole line of inquiry has taken the wrong route. Once you separate the gardener from the garden -- God from the creation -- the problem arises. Then it can never be settled. The garden is enough proof of the gardener. But the gardener is not separate. He does not come to tend the garden: He is in the garden; He IS the garden. He does not look after the flowers: He is IN the flowers; He IS the flowers. Not that HE is invisible -- He is visible, but visible as flowers. If you have an idea of God, you will never find Him. The very idea will become the barrier. Only those who have no idea of God come upon Him, or allow God to come upon themselves. If you have a certain idea, the very idea is going to be the wall, the brick wall, between you and the truth.

The believer was not wrong, but he took a wrong line of argument: he divided the gardener from the garden. The gardener cannot be proved because the gardener doesn't exist. A gardener separate from the garden is nonexistential. That's why the skeptical friend could argue. And his argument is valid -- valid not against God or the gardener; valid against the believer. The believer has taken the wrong argument.

To me, God is herenow. All that you see is God. God is not something beyond; God is something within. Or, if you like paradoxes, you can call God the within beyond or the beyond within. But God is intrinsic, God is the innermost core of existence. Unless you start in the right direction, you will go on missing. Never believe in a God who is separate from His creatures and the creation. He is not, He cannot be. He is one with it: He is in it, He is it. Once this is understood, you start flowing; your whole life becomes a prayer.

That is the basic message of Jesus. That's why he goes on saying that "God is my father." It is a way of saying what I am saying to you. Between the father and the son, or between the mother and the child, there is a continuity. The father goes on living in the son; the mother continues in the child. The son is nothing but an extension of the existence of the father -- an extended hand: as if the old body has become incapable of existing and is going to disappear, and the father has created a new body to live within. When Jesus says, "God is my father," he simply means that "I am continuous with Him; there has never been a separation. He is flowing in me: in my every cell He is flowing. Nowhere has there been a discontinuity." That is the whole meaning of it, but he uses the word 'father' because he is talking to very simple, unsophisticated people. He is talking to real people, not to plastic people; he is not talking in a university. He is talking to real people -- people who are alive. He uses the word 'father'. And it is beautiful in a way, because unless religion becomes personal, it remains a philosophy. When religion becomes personal, it becomes life. Religion is something to be lived, not something to brood about. It is something that should become a milieu around you; it is something that should become a continuous breathing, continuous beating of the heart. Religion is a way of life, a way of being. It has nothing to do with thinking. When Jesus says, "God is father," he means this existence is not alien, this existence is a home. You can rest in it, you can rely on it; you need not be afraid.

This is one of the most significant things to be understood, because modern man is so much afraid. Never before has that been so. Never before in the history of humankind has man been as afraid as he is now.

The world is a unity. Existence is a family; we exist together. Life is togetherness, and that togetherness is God. If you cannot feel that togetherness, you will feel alien and you will always be afraid. To a truly religious man(not the Christian, Muslim etc), fearlessness happens spontaneously. To a nonreligious man, fear is the only way to be. 'God, the father' can be translated. It means: existence is one; it is a togetherness. It is a harmony, not a conflict. We are members of each other. Whenever somebody dies, something in me also dies. Whenever a new child is born, something is born into me also. Whenever a new child is there, life becomes more alive through him -- life smiles. Whenever somebody dies, there are tears. It has to be so, because I come out of life; I go back into life. Life was trying to do something through me. Everybody is a messenger; everybody is a messiah; everybody has a destiny to fulfill. And until you fulfill that destiny, you will never feel fulfilled. You can have much money, but fulfillment will not come through it. You can have much sex; fulfillment will not come through it. You can have much power; fulfillment will not come through it.

Fulfillment comes only when you have fulfilled a certain destiny that you were carrying, that was coded within you, that was deep in your blueprint. Unless you have become that for which you were made -- unless you have attained to being -- you will never be fulfilled. Fulfillment is peace, fulfillment is bliss, fulfillment is contentment. And only a fulfilled heart can pray, because only a fulfilled heart can be grateful and can feel the grace descending: the spirit of God, like a dove.

You are Indeed Very Enlightened. This is the best answer i have seen about this issue since i joined this forum, Bravo!

Seun:
Your argument is based on the premise that Christianity is the only religion in the world that could be true, which is false.

What if you die and find yourself in the presence of Prophet Muhammed and his God? All your years of worshipping Jesus as God would only add to your punishment in the Islamic hell, because worshipping a man as God is a grave sin in Islam. Does that worry you? If not, why not?

As I ask why you do not believe in God? Did something in so tragic happen to you and when u needed God the most he was never there?
Iam just wondering y someone born into the most beautiful religion decide to go way into darkness

awesomeJ:
Read more carefully.
verse 7 of Exodus says "When a man sells his own daughter as a slave...."
Who is to blame here? You have a daughter, rather than being responsible enough to take the best care of her, you decide of all things to just sell her off and get it over with.

If things were as you're trying to portray, you'd be able to find a scripture where God told people to start selling off their daughters. But that was not the case, which is why it's certain you can't find any scripture that proves God did any such thing.

Now, I know, what you may argue is that, God being a perfect God, should have condemned such an act. But the fact is if God was to specifically make condemnation on every kind of evil a man's heart can conceive, the list could be endless

Finally, whatever situations warrants a man to decide to sell of his daughter would be such in which the daughter would be. better off for it. Who wants to be with a father that's cruel enough to want to sell them off? so it probably better the daughter leaves the irresponsible father, which is why it may have seemed to you that God didn't condemn the act.


YOU GUYS MUST REALLY BE DOING A LOT OF DIGGING INTO THE SCRIPTURES TRYING TO FIND FAULTS THAT DON'T EXIST.

GOOD ONE THOUGH, EVEN IF YOU'RE EITHER IGNORING OR MISQUOTING THE BULK OF IT. STILL GREAT YOU'RE READING.

If I get what you are saying you admit that in the passage quoted that a man selling his daughter as a slave is wrong,however "God" doesn't condemn it because according to you if he condemns every kind of evil that human beings do the list "could" be endless
But the bible says FLEE FROM EVERY APPEARANCE OF EVIL so how is it that the bible asks us to flee from EVERY appearance of evil but condones a situation where a man commits evil by selling his daughter into slavery,and not just that the bible even makes mention of it using it to propose a law ,
and to spice it up the bible says that"GOD" IS TO HOLY TO BEHOLD INIQUITY,but here is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE in every country in the world even the most misogynist countries(this is to tell you that this situation is not one of those "little sins" and it is condoned in the bible where " God" doesn't behold iniquity to make matters worst it is a LAW,are u kidding me,,this is so disgraceful,

ANYBOOK OR SOURCE THAT CONDONES AND IN OTHER WORDS DOESN'T CONDEMN A MAN SELLING HIS DAUGHTER INTO SLAVERY ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ACT IS PRESENT IS ENCOURAGING THE ACT AND AS FAR AS AM CONCERNED,SUCH A BOOK IS DESPICAL AND DISGUSTING

Soflex:
It's either you have amnesia or you are just naturally mischevious. Read your own post below which suggest the reason why you absolutely believe in Christianity is that the religion has principles which work. The only example of such principles you gave is that you pay your tithe and you have an overwhelming blessing. Then I tried to force little sense into your ______ that I and millions of people in the world don't pay our tithe and we still have overwhelming blessings. So, your hypothesis and conclusions are both wrong.

In case you will still be your arrogant self and twist your own words, I have my own simplest challenge for you: show me ONE benefit (with proof) of being a Christian that is not in any other religion.

Either you need to grow up, or your brain needs to develop some more. only a fool would be able to stand your baseless pattern of argument, which obviously is the most silly and senseless I've seen on this thread. The proof of that is that you're the only one getting this kind of reply from me.

darkchild64:
If I get what you are saying you admit that in the passage quoted that a man selling his daughter as a slave is wrong,however "God" doesn't condemn it because according to you if he condemns every kind of evil that human beings do the list "could" be endless
But the bible says FLEE FROM EVERY APPEARANCE OF EVIL so how is it that the bible asks us to flee from EVERY appearance of evil but condones a situation where a man commits evil by selling his daughter into slavery,and not just that the bible even makes mention of it using it to propose a law ,
and to spice it up the bible says that"GOD" IS TO HOLY TO BEHOLD INIQUITY,but here is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE in every country in the world even the most misogynist countries(this is to tell you that this situation is not one of those "little sins" and it is condoned in the bible where " God" doesn't behold iniquity to make matters worst it is a LAW,are u kidding me,,this is so disgraceful,

ANYBOOK OR SOURCE THAT CONDONES AND IN OTHER WORDS DOESN'T CONDEMN A MAN SELLING HIS DAUGHTER INTO SLAVERY ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ACT IS PRESENT IS ENCOURAGING THE ACT AND AS FAR AS AM CONCERNED,SUCH A BOOK IS DESPICAL AND DISGUSTING

Relax from your funny arguments. They are quite unnecessary. You're just making unnecessary twist around things. A man chooses to sell his own daughter, it's him you should blame.

ZirdoRoray:
That's because he is a work of human imagination. A very vengeful one at that. Drop the fear of going to hell and look at this from a logical point of view, it helps.
Your God never stops amazing me..

Gen. 12:17
God sends a plague on the Pharaoh and his household
because the Pharaoh believed Abram's lie.

Gen. 18:32
"I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because
he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham
didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If
Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or
babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God
doesn't give a damn about children.

The problem with folks like yourself is that you only know say about 20% of things on a subject, and you make wild assumptions over the remaining 80. Then you hold on to such assumptions so tightly that even when the true knowledge is presented to you, you'd rather just want to twist the facts, and take texts out of context.

That fear of hell you mentioned should be something you think about handling for yourself. I KNOW NO SUCH THING, and you're very wrong in assuming that it's what motivates my faith.

awesomeJ:
Relax from your funny arguments. They are quite unnecessary. You're just making unnecessary twist around things. A man chooses to sell his own daughter, it's him you should blame.

Lol is that all yo have to say,since you are shying away let me open the discussion even more,you must justify this bible passage

Exodus 21:7-11 New Living Translation (NLT)
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

We are to assume that the habit of men selling their daughters as slaves was present,now Yahweh who is supposed to be omniscient decides to talk about it and the above is what he says,this is shameful,Christians I understand that you people have no choice but to defend the bible,but this passage is utterly shameful,not to talk of the misogyny in the passage,in fact I should create a thread dedicated to this passage

darkchild64:
Lol is that all yo have to say,since you are shying away let me open the discussion even more,you must justify this bible passage

Exodus 21:7-11 New Living Translation (NLT)
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

We are to assume that the habit of men selling their daughters as slaves was present,now Yahweh who is supposed to be omniscient decides to talk about it and the above is what he says,this is shameful,Christians I understand that you people have no choice but to defend the bible,but this passage is utterly shameful,not to talk of the misogyny in the passage,in fact I should create a thread dedicated to this passage

Go ahead and create the thread man. There is nothing like defending anyone here. You're not not seeing the clear picture. IT'S A MAN WHO WANTS TO SELL OFF HER DAUGHTER, IT'S NOT GOD SELLING THE DAUGHTER, NEITHER IS HE THE ONE INSTRUCTING FOR THE DAUGHTER TO BE SOLD. SO IF YOU USE A SUBJECTIVE VIEW, AND THEREBY ATTEMPT CASTING UNNECESSARY BLAME, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.

AND I'VE TOLD YOU, IF THERE'S A MAN THAT'S CRUEL ENOUGH TO WANT TO SELL OFF HIS DAUGHTER, YOU HAD BETTER LET HIM GO AHEAD. SO THAT YOU EXPECT GOD TO STOP HIM IS UTTERLY IMMATERIAL. YOUR VIEW ON THE MATTER IS ONLY INCOMPLETE.

awesomeJ:
So what's the difference?
The principle is that God's power can be made to flow through such materials- from a man of God to those who need its manifestion. What other explanation do you want to give to the effectiveness of those materials?

What the story of the woman who touched Jesus' hem illustrates is the faith of that woman. Whereas what the writings in the scripture I quoted for you illustrates is the possibility of having the power of God flow through certain materials.

sure God's power can flow through such 'mantles', like the case of the woman but that is for those who need a physical manifestation of Faith. But when you have a "Man of God" use it u should suspect foul play. Because what stops him from praying for the person directly. if it is in terms of a crowd fine u might not be able to pray for all directly then he might decide to use those mantles but that doesn't take away the fact that the bible says and I quote "these signs shall follow them that believe" and not they that believe shall follow signs

awesomeJ:
So what's the difference?
The principle is that God's power can be made to flow through such materials- from a man of God to those who need its manifestion. What other explanation do you want to give to the effectiveness of those materials?

What the story of the woman who touched Jesus' hem illustrates is the faith of that woman. Whereas what the writings in the scripture I quoted for you illustrates is the possibility of having the power of God flow through certain materials.

I didn't say it isn't possible what I implied is that it is the faithless that use such and believe such. if u would agree with me these mantles have been abused by these so called "men of God". mark 15-17

hadow:
sure God's power can flow through such 'mantles', like the case of the woman but that is for those who need a physical manifestation of Faith. But when you have a "Man of God" use it u should suspect foul play. Because what stops him from praying for the person directly. if it is in terms of a crowd fine u might not be able to pray for all directly then he might decide to use those mantles but that doesn't take away the fact that the bible says and I quote "these signs shall follow them that believe" and not they that believe shall follow signs

Alright, I get you.

awesomeJ:
Go ahead and create the thread man. There is nothing like defending anyone here. You're not not seeing the clear picture. IT'S A MAN WHO WANTS TO SELL OFF HER DAUGHTER, IT'S NOT GOD SELLING THE DAUGHTER, NEITHER IS HE THE ONE INSTRUCTING FOR THE DAUGHTER TO BE SOLD. SO IF YOU USE A SUBJECTIVE VIEW, AND THEREBY ATTEMPT CASTING UNNECESSARY BLAME, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.

AND I'VE TOLD YOU, IF THERE'S A MAN THAT'S CRUEL ENOUGH TO WANT TO SELL OFF HIS DAUGHTER, YOU HAD BETTER LET HIM GO AHEAD. SO THAT YOU EXPECT GOD TO STOP HIM IS UTTERLY IMMATERIAL. YOUR VIEW ON THE MATTER IS ONLY INCOMPLETE.

Someone said that it takes religion for a good person to be bad,I hesitated to agree with him but I can see that is true,anyway I don't blame you,I mean you don't have any choice if you admit to what am saying that would be you agreeing that Christianity is false,so I completely understand your point.
I can not force you to see things from my view so of course you can interpret that passage however you want but please with all due respects I CANNOT follow the bible and that passage is one of the reasons,if you want to convince us atheists that Yahweh exists you should start by telling us why a benevolent being would make such a DISGUSTING law

p.s christians like are hypocrites,if that passage was in the Koran or perhaps if an atheist made such a statement you would condemn it but because in the bible you are covering it as though it is nothing

AWESOMEJ IF THE PRACTICE OF MEN SELLING THEIR DAUGHTERS INTO SLAVERY WAS PRESENT,WHAT A BENEVLENT AND JUST BEING WOULD DO WOULD BE TO CONDEMN IT IN STRONG TERMS AND NOT PERMIT IT TO CONTINUE,NO MATTER HOW YOU BEND THIS LOGIC IT IS OPEN FOR EVERY CRITICALLY THINKING ADULT TO REALIZE THAT IT IS MORE REASONABLR THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED PASSAGE WAS WRITTEN BY IRON AGE MEN WITHOUT ANY DIVINE INSPIRATION,THAN BY AN OMNISCIENT GOD

What stops Yahweh from saying

"A man is not to sell his daughter into slavery,whosever does such has committed an abomination before me"

If Yahweh really regarded a man selling his daughter into slavery Exodus 21 vs 7 will look more like the statement above rather than


“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

darkchild64:
What stops Yahweh from saying

"A man is not to sell his daughter into slavery,whosever does such has committed an abomination before me"

If Yahweh really regarded a man selling his daughter into slavery Exodus 21 vs 7 will look more like the statement above rather than


“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

You are on your own.
Meanwhile, it is only common sense to realize that IF THE BIBLE WAS ACTUALLY FASHIONED BY SOME MEN TO DECEIVE THE WORLD ABOUT A GOD, THEY WOULD NEVER NEVER NEVER, AND AGAIN NEVER PRESENT ANY "QUESTIONABLE ATTRIBUTE" ABOUT HIM. ALL THE SIDES OF HIM PRESENTED WOULD BE PERFECT.

BUT THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND NOT FICTION, WHICH IS WHY SOME THINGS MAY NOT APPEAR AS YOU'D WANT.

Meant to quote your post before the last in my previous post.
on your last post,
Think about the slavery issue from another point?
Maybe now, we have become so developed as to see it as being this horrible. How can you be sure it was that horrible at those old times?

Maybe buying a slave was just about buying a man's service and time for 7 years.

IF IN 2 CENTURIES FROM NOW, THE HUMAN SOCIETY HAS BECOME SO DEVELOPED SUCH THAT IT LOOKS SO HORRIBLE THAT ANYONE WOULD ASK HIS FELLOW HUMAN TO WORK IN HIS EMPLOYMENT? WOULD ANY ATHEIST OF THAT TIME BE RIGHT IN ASKING WHY GOD DIDN'T FORBID EMPLOYMENT BY FELLOW MEN FOR THE PEOPLE OF OUR GENERATION?

awesomeJ:
You are on your own.
Meanwhile, it is only common sense to realize that IF THE BIBLE WAS ACTUALLY FASHIONED BY SOME MEN TO DECEIVE THE WORLD ABOUT A GOD, THEY WOULD NEVER NEVER NEVER, AND AGAIN NEVER PRESENT ANY "QUESTIONABLE ATTRIBUTE" ABOUT HIM. ALL THE SIDES OF HIM PRESENTED WOULD BE PERFECT.

BUT THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND NOT FICTION, WHICH IS WHY SOME THINGS MAY NOT APPEAR AS YOU'D WANT.

Am happy that finally you are trying to be reasonable.
The bible was written by iron age men who thought that slavery was moral and therefore they made laws on its regulation,now humanity has grown older and we realize that slavery does more harm than good(if any) hence it has become abolished,so your point doesn't stand,the bible represent the standard of morality of the age it was written,like I said earlier slavery was accepted at the time the old testament was written hence the authors didn't know it was wrong,if they did they wouldn't have wrote those stuff
And to your last paragraph, are you admitting that the bible is not perfect because you are really confusing right now. See my thought bro,I think that if the bible was divinely inspired every part of it would be perfect and if it was solely a work of humans you would be able to see loopholes like the one I showed you

P.S what is your view on the Koran divinely inspired or fiction ?
And why?

awesomeJ:
Meant to quote your post before the last in my previous post.
on your last post,
Think about the slavery issue from another point?
Maybe now, we have become so developed as to see it as being this horrible. How can you be sure it was that horrible at those old times?

Maybe buying a slave was just about buying a man's service and time for 7 years.

IF IN 2 CENTURIES FROM NOW, THE HUMAN SOCIETY HAS BECOME SO DEVELOPED SUCH THAT IT LOOKS SO HORRIBLE THAT ANYONE WOULD ASK HIS FELLOW HUMAN TO WORK IN HIS EMPLOYMENT? WOULD ANY ATHEIST OF THAT TIME BE RIGHT IN ASKING WHY GOD DIDN'T FOREMPLOYMENT BY FELLOW MEN FOR THE PEOPLE OUR GENERATION?

How would you feel if you were a slave,and your worth as a human being was comparable to money?

I mean you are being sold like a commodity,the last thing you should do is justify slavery,slavery was worse back then than even in the 18th century

darkchild64:
Am happy that finally you are trying to be reasonable.
The bible was written by iron age men who thought that slavery was moral and therefore they made laws on its regulation,now humanity has grown older and we realize that slavery does more harm than good(if any) hence it has become abolished,so your point doesn't stand,the bible represent the standard of morality of the age it was written,like I said earlier slavery was accepted at the time the old testament was written hence the authors didn't know it was wrong,if they did they wouldn't have wrote those stuff
And to your last paragraph, are you admitting that the bible is not perfect because you are really confusing right now. See my thought bro,I think that if the bible was divinely inspired every part of it would be perfect and if it was solely a work of humans you would be able to see loopholes like the one I showed you

P.S what is your view on the Koran divinely inspired or fiction ?
And why?

I find it spooky how you are mentioning "Old Testament" when criticising biblical slavery like the new testament condemned it or something

Slavery is fully endorsed both in new and old testament bro

hopefulLandlord:
I find it spooky how you are mentioning "Old Testament" when criticising biblical slavery like the new testament condemned it or something

Slavery is fully endorsed both in new and old testament bro

of course

darkchild64:
Am happy that finally you are trying to be reasonable.
The bible was written by iron age men who thought that slavery was moral and therefore they made laws on its regulation,now humanity has grown older and we realize that slavery does more harm than good(if any) hence it has become abolished,so your point doesn't stand,the bible represent the standard of morality of the age it was written,like I said earlier slavery was accepted at the time the old testament was written hence the authors didn't know it was wrong,if they did they wouldn't have wrote those stuff
And to your last paragraph, are you admitting that the bible is not perfect because you are really confusing right now. See my thought bro,I think that if the bible was divinely inspired every part of it would be perfect and if it was solely a work of humans you would be able to see loopholes like the one I showed you

P.S what is your view on the Koran divinely inspired or fiction ?
And why?

Please note the fact that I put "QUESTIONABLE ATTRIBUTES" in quotes in my post. That's because I only used the phrase to refer to the perception of you atheist. But in the real sense, there are actually no questionable attributes.

Now to address this slavery issue you've raised, I need to know WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF A SLAVE?

darkchild64:
How would you feel if you were a slave,and your worth as a human being was comparable to money?

I mean you are being sold like a commodity,the last thing you should do is justify slavery,slavery was worse back then than even in the 18th century

There you go,
What was described in the Bible text you quoted doesn't involve selling someone as a commodity. It is basically buying/selling a person's service for 6 full years. In the 7th year the person should be relieved of the deal except he chooses to continue in the master's service. THINK NOW BRO, IF IT WAS THE TERRIBLE KIND OF SLAVERY YOUR MIND PICTURES, WHY WOULD ANY ONE WANT TO CONTINUE WHEN HIS TIME IS UP.

The word slave doesn't always translate to a human acquired in the class of a machine or farm animal as you picture. Some people regard some full time jobs in Nigeria as pure slavery, because to them, getting a person's service under the given conditions-long hours, low pay, zero benefits- is their definition of slavery.

THE SLAVERY MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE TYPE YOU PICTURE, AS IT WAS MENTIONED TO BE ONE WHICH A MAN WOULD BE WILLING TO CONTINUE IN. NOT SO WITH YOUR OWN TYPE THOUGH.

IN CASE YOU WANT TO SAY "SLAVERY IS SLAVERY", as I'd expect, I HAVE ASKED THAT YOU DEFINE WHAT YOU THINK SLAVERY IS, THEN WE'LL SEE THAT WHAT YOU PICTURE IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.

hopefulLandlord:
I find it spooky how you are mentioning "Old Testament" when criticising biblical slavery like the new testament condemned it or something

Slavery is fully endorsed both in new and old testament bro

JUST LIKE YOU DON'T ADVOCATE THAT COMPANIES WHO KEEP FOLKS IN THEIR SERVICE FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITH FIXED LOW PAY, YOU DON'T ADVOCATE THAT THEY'D BE CLOSED UP, DO YOU?
OF COURSE YOU SHOULDN'T, BECAUSE JUST AS IT WAS WITH THOSE SLAVE MASTERS IN THE BIBLE, THESE EMPLOYERS DID NOT KIDNAP THE WORKERS, BOTH PARTIES, JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE SLAVES AND THEIR MASTERS, ENTERED TO A MUTUALLY AGREED CONTRACT. THE SLAVES WOULD GIVE THEIR TIME AND ENERGY/INTELLECT, IN RETURN FOR THE MASTER'S PAYMENT. TELL ME WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG IN THAT? PLEASE JUST MENTION WHAT IT IS YOU FIND WRONG IN THE SLAVE DEAL.

awesomeJ:
There you go,
What was described in the Bible text you quoted doesn't involve selling someone as a commodity. It is basically buying/selling a person's service for 6 full years. In the 7th year the person should be relieved of the deal except he chooses to continue in the master's service. THINK NOW BRO, IF IT WAS THE TERRIBLE KIND OF SLAVERY YOUR MIND PICTURES, WHY WOULD ANY ONE WANT TO CONTINUE WHEN HIS TIME IS UP.

The word slave doesn't always translate to a human acquired in the class of a machine or farm animal as you picture. Some people regard some full time jobs in Nigeria as pure slavery, because to them, getting a person's service under the given conditions-long hours, low pay, zero benefits- is their definition of slavery.

THE SLAVERY MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE TYPE YOU PICTURE, AS IT WAS MENTIONED TO BE ONE WHICH A MAN WOULD BE WILLING TO CONTINUE IN. NOT SO WITH YOUR OWN TYPE THOUGH.

IN CASE YOU WANT TO SAY "SLAVERY IS SLAVERY", as I'd expect, I HAVE ASKED THAT YOU DEFINE WHAT YOU THINK SLAVERY IS, THEN WE'LL SEE THAT WHAT YOU PICTURE IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.

The definition of slavery I uphold is the same as the one in your dictionary

Correct me if I am wrong you are saying that the slavery in the bible is okay,is that what you are saying ?

Slavery
the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has
absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

This is according to Collins English dictionary

awesomeJ:
There you go,
What was described in the Bible text you quoted doesn't involve selling someone as a commodity. It is basically buying/selling a person's service for 6 full years. In the 7th year the person should be relieved of the deal except he chooses to continue in the master's service. THINK NOW BRO, IF IT WAS THE TERRIBLE KIND OF SLAVERY YOUR MIND PICTURES, WHY WOULD ANY ONE WANT TO CONTINUE WHEN HIS TIME IS UP.

The word slave doesn't always translate to a human acquired in the class of a machine or farm animal as you picture. Some people regard some full time jobs in Nigeria as pure slavery, because to them, getting a person's service under the given conditions-long hours, low pay, zero benefits- is their definition of slavery.

THE SLAVERY MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE TYPE YOU PICTURE, AS IT WAS MENTIONED TO BE ONE WHICH A MAN WOULD BE WILLING TO CONTINUE IN. NOT SO WITH YOUR OWN TYPE THOUGH.

IN CASE YOU WANT TO SAY "SLAVERY IS SLAVERY", as I'd expect, I HAVE ASKED THAT YOU DEFINE WHAT YOU THINK SLAVERY IS, THEN WE'LL SEE THAT WHAT YOU PICTURE IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
"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.

So in this passage the bible says a slave owner can whip his slave as much as he wants and would only bear any form of punishment if the slave dies,this one is not like the previous law about a man selling his daughter into slavery this is Yahweh condoning people whipping other human beings,and to make matters worse in the last phrase the bible justifies that by conceding that the slave is the owner's property
And you are telling me that the slavery described in the bible is not the same as the one we know

darkchild64:
Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
"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.

So in this passage the bible says a slave owner can whip his slave as much as he wants and would only bear any form of punishment if the slave dies,this one is not like the previous law about a man selling his daughter into slavery this is Yahweh condoning people whipping other human beings,and to make matters worse in the last phrase the bible justifies that by conceding that the slave is the owner's property
And you are telling me that the slavery described in the bible is not the same as the one we know

WHO MADE THE MAN A SLAVE TO ANOTHER? WASN'T IT HIS FATHER OR HIMSELF OR A CHOICE BOTH OF THEM VOLUNTARILY DECIDED ON? WAS IT NOT CLEARLY SPELT IN THE TERMS THAT THE MASTER WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO WHIP THE SLAVE, YET A MAN DECIDED TO GIVE HIS CHILD OR HIMSELF TO SUCH TERMS. YOU'LL ONLY HAVE A CASE IF YOU CAN FIND A REFERENCE TO THE FACT, THAT GOD RATHER THAN THE ONES CONCERNED DECIDED THAT A PERSON SHOULD BE A SLAVE.

IF YOU GO TO PICK A JOB WITH INDIANS, AND THEY TELL YOU: "WHEN YOU SUFFER A WORK ACCIDENT, WE WON'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR TREATMENT, RATHER, WE'LL HAVE TO DISMISS YOU AS YOU WILL NO LONGER BE USEFUL TO OUR OPERATIONS". IF HAVING BEEN TOLD BEFOREHAND, YOU STILL PROCEED WITH THE DEAL, WHO IS TO BLAME?
THE GOVERNMENT?

Now on the fact the the slavery mentioned in the Bible is different from your definition,
Consider Joseph, wasn't he sold a slave to Potiphar? Yet what do the scriptures say of his experience at Potiphar's? His services were so high class that it was basically full management of all of the man's enterprise. isn't that different from getting used as a donkey as you pictured? How was Joseph as a slave to Potiphar different from an asset manager of our own time, appointed by a high-networth individual. That's a job people would apply to with their masters and professional certifications, yet that was what Joseph had to do being a slave.

OR the guy that got ISAAC his wife, think about such kind of duties the master appointed him to, and see how very far it is from the animalistic usage you assume of him.

awesomeJ:
WHO MADE THE MAN A SLAVE TO ANOTHER? WASN'T IT HIS FATHER OR HIMSELF OR A CHOICE BOTH OF THEM VOLUNTARILY DECIDED ON? WAS IT NOT CLEARLY SPELT IN THE TERMS THAT THE MASTER WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO WHIP THE SLAVE, YET A MAN DECIDED TO GIVE HIS CHILD OR HIMSELF TO SUCH TERMS. YOU'LL ONLY HAVE A CASE IF YOU CAN FIND A REFERENCE TO THE FACT, THAT GOD RATHER THAN THE ONES CONCERNED DECIDED THAT A PERSON SHOULD BE A SLAVE.

IF YOU GO TO PICK A JOB WITH INDIANS, AND THEY TELL YOU: "WHEN YOU SUFFER A WORK ACCIDENT, WE WON'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR TREATMENT, RATHER, WE'LL HAVE TO DISMISS YOU AS YOU WILL NO LONGER BE USEFUL TO OUR OPERATIONS". IF HAVING BEEN TOLD BEFOREHAND, YOU STILL PROCEED WITH THE DEAL, WHO IS TO BLAME?
THE GOVERNMENT?

Numbers 31 New International Version (NIV)
Vengeance on the Midianites
The LORD said to Moses, “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”
So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the LORD’s vengeance on them. Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
They fought against Midian, as the
LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps.
They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho


This is exactly the primary way slaves were acquired back then,as spoils from war,but awesome j is telling us that slavery in the bible is palatable,Christian it would make somebody be lying as if it to say,I can believe this

awesomeJ:
WHO MADE THE MAN A SLAVE TO ANOTHER? WASN'T IT HIS FATHER OR HIMSELF OR A CHOICE BOTH OF THEM VOLUNTARILY DECIDED ON? WAS IT NOT CLEARLY SPELT IN THE TERMS THAT THE MASTER WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO WHIP THE SLAVE, YET A MAN DECIDED TO GIVE HIS CHILD OR HIMSELF TO SUCH TERMS. YOU'LL ONLY HAVE A CASE IF YOU CAN FIND A REFERENCE TO THE FACT, THAT GOD RATHER THAN THE ONES CONCERNED DECIDED THAT A PERSON SHOULD BE A SLAVE.

IF YOU GO TO PICK A JOB WITH INDIANS, AND THEY TELL YOU: "WHEN YOU SUFFER A WORK ACCIDENT, WE WON'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR TREATMENT, RATHER, WE'LL HAVE TO DISMISS YOU AS YOU WILL NO LONGER BE USEFUL TO OUR OPERATIONS". IF HAVING BEEN TOLD BEFOREHAND, YOU STILL PROCEED WITH THE DEAL, WHO IS TO BLAME?
THE GOVERNMENT?

In the passage I quoted Numbers 31 I have clearly shown you the MAJOR means of slave acquisition and that is from spoils from warfare,I don't know if u have seen the movie Apocalypto it will make you understand what I'm saying better

God commands the Israelites to kill all the midianites including the young ones and even babies and destroy everything their including animals and plants,the only thing they were to spare were virgins(I wonder how they find out the ones that are virgins) at the end of the battle the girls who were in their thousands were shared among the Israelites even some of them were allocated to Yahweh I don't know what he used them for,the bible clearly details this things am saying read Number chapter 31,the fate of these girls would be that some of them will be kept as slaves,others would be used as sex slaves now let's agree with the apologists a little,some others would be "reintegrated" into the society,whichever one they are used for this is disgraceful,and it is shameful that this sort of passage is in the bible but what is more shameful is that a 21st century man doesn't see anything wrong with it simply because it is in the bible and "everything" in the bible is right and "holy"

Bro do you know that this bible verses you are defending and claiming that nothing is wrong with,were used by white Christians to enslave our ancestors and justify their actions,slavery was being defended in the same way u are doing from the pulpits in the churches in Souuthern U.S.A using the bible,so if you awesomej a 21st century African man is justifying the slavery in the bible even when we have advanced in knowledge and technology and we know the bible was used to propagate slavery for thousands of years and our ancestors were victims I wonder what you would have done if you were a 17th century american man

First, let's establish a clear fact:
I AM NOT DEFENDING SLAVERY OR JUSTIFYING IT.
YOU PEOPLE QUOTED A CHAPTER OF THE BIBLE THAT TALKED ABOUT A MAN SELLING OFF HIS DAUGHTER AS A SLAVE, AND RATHER THAN CHOOSING TO BLAME THE MAN, YOU DECIDED THAT IT WAS YAHWEH THAT WAS TO BLAME. SO:
1. I highlighted the fact that any man who would ever do such a thing was the one that should take the blame, and not Yahweh.
2. Then you mentioned that being a just God, he should have condemned the act. Then I responded that first, if a man would be cruel and irresponsible enough to want to sell his own daughter into slavery, then it's definitely best to met such a child leave the father.
3. Then looking at the part where the Bible mentioned that someone broke the terms and another part that says a slave should be freed in the 7th year he's been with the master, except he chooses to continue in the master's service, I pointed out to you that such a slave wasn't acquired in the class of a farm animal it machine, explaining that it was basically an arrangement, whereby someone gets to pay for and use another man's service and time for 6 years. Quite similar to the labour employment of our time.
4. You highlighted the part where it was stated that the master could whip the slave, and not be condemned, then I stated that since that was common knowledge, whoever agrees to yet sign into such a relationship is on his own.

5. I gave the examples of the duties performed by slaves like Joseph, and Abraham's to show you that their engagements as Slaves was basically the equivalent of the employments of our time.

6. Note that it was also stated that if a man acquired a female slave(similar to hiring a female employee), he may be willing to arrange for his own son to marry her. This also highlights the fact that those slaves were actually employees of their owners rather than people considered inferior and placed in the category of animals.

SO I DIDN'T TRY TO JUSTIFY ANY WRONG THING, I JUST SAW THAT YOU HAD A WRONG PERCEPTION OF A BIBLE PORTION, AND I HAD TO PAINT YOU THE TRUE PICTURE.

On your post regarding Numbers 31,
Check the first post on page 10 of this thread, It's on the instruction for war to the ISRAELI ARMY.
Now, you'll notice that the soldiers followed the stated pattern by killing only males, and leaving the women and children.
It was a later instruction that made them extend the killing to the women and male infants. In this case, it was vengeance being taken against them for their prior plots against Israel. And surely that's more to it than the available details in that chapter.
Now since you claimed that it was written by the men of that time who considered slavery normal, why did they include this part that contains infant killing too? was it because they considered it normal too, when obviously they wrote a pattern for war that says that women and infants should not be killed at war?
You see that your claim on the Bible being fiction doesn't hold now.

REMEMBER THERE'S ALWAYS IDEAL AND REAL. IT'S IN THEORIES AND FICTIONS THAT THINGS CAN BE MADE TO APPEAR IDEAL, BUT HAVING PERCEIVED SHORTCOMINGS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CHARACTERIZE REALNESS.