Ugh, I can't believe someone as smart as you is being this dense.

System #1: Slavery/Bondservant - Non-Israelite is owned, against his will, by an Israelite master, and may be willed (along with children) to the children of the master.

System #2: Indentured Servitude - An Israelite bonds himself to the service of another person, perhaps in exchange for repayment of debts.

The fact that there was a system by which a person could voluntarily (or under pressure of debt) sell himself into servitude does not mean that it's the only system, that the other system didn't exist, or that they're both basically the same thing. If you talk about the Indentured Servitude system (#2) one more time as a way of deflecting from the existence of System #1, slavery, I'm going to have to conclude you're being willfully ignorant, and are beyond help and reason.

And are you seriously proposing the people of ancient Israel had no currency?

(March 7, 2016 at 5:30 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Ugh, I can't believe someone as smart as you is being this dense.

System #1: Slavery/Bondservant - Non-Israelite is owned, against his will, by an Israelite master, and may be willed (along with children) to the children of the master.

System #2: Indentured Servitude - An Israelite bonds himself to the service of another person, perhaps in exchange for repayment of debts.

The fact that there was a system by which a person could voluntarily (or under pressure of debt) sell himself into servitude does not mean that it's the only system, that the other system didn't exist, or that they're both basically the same thing. If you talk about the Indentured Servitude system (#2) one more time as a way of deflecting from the existence of System #1, slavery, I'm going to have to conclude you're being willfully ignorant, and are beyond help and reason.

And are you seriously proposing the people of ancient Israel had no currency?

Eleazar was from Damascus, he was not a Hebrew, yet he was Abraham's heir

Also Where did the Hebrews get currency from? they were nomads when they left Egypt with pretty much the clothes on their back.

Just humor me and offer a solution to the scenario I provided.
*edit*
I should also mention:

(March 7, 2016 at 5:30 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: System #1: Slavery/Bondservant - Non-Israelite is owned, against his will, by an Israelite master, and may be willed (along with children) to the children of the master.

just because YOU say so doesn't make it true.

"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

There are no exceptions to that law, therefore one could not take another person against their will.

(March 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 7, 2016 at 5:30 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Ugh, I can't believe someone as smart as you is being this dense.

System #1: Slavery/Bondservant - Non-Israelite is owned, against his will, by an Israelite master, and may be willed (along with children) to the children of the master.

System #2: Indentured Servitude - An Israelite bonds himself to the service of another person, perhaps in exchange for repayment of debts.

The fact that there was a system by which a person could voluntarily (or under pressure of debt) sell himself into servitude does not mean that it's the only system, that the other system didn't exist, or that they're both basically the same thing. If you talk about the Indentured Servitude system (#2) one more time as a way of deflecting from the existence of System #1, slavery, I'm going to have to conclude you're being willfully ignorant, and are beyond help and reason.

And are you seriously proposing the people of ancient Israel had no currency?

Eleazar was from Damascus, he was not a Hebrew, yet he was Abraham's heir

Um, he was also Abraham's (illegitimate) son by one of his servants. So. Yeah.

(March 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Also Where did the Hebrews get currency from? they were nomads when they left Egypt with pretty much the clothes on their back.

Just humor me and offer a solution to the scenario I provided.

Well, to start with, they could have continued using some of the coins that they are supposed to have taken from Egypt when they left (Exodus 12:35-36), but that's neither here nor there since Exodus, in chapter 30, also mentions the sheckel as their currency.

So, I'm going to assume this was a test of my knowledge of the Pentateuch. In any case, the Torah also breaks down a specific set of rules regarding poverty levels and what may be offered for sacrifices, such as burning a few measures of gran instead of a small bird, if you can't afford the bird, or the bird if you can't afford the goat/sheep/etc. It's pretty clear they had a full economy.

(March 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *edit*
I should also mention:

(March 7, 2016 at 5:30 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: System #1: Slavery/Bondservant - Non-Israelite is owned, against his will, by an Israelite master, and may be willed (along with children) to the children of the master.

just because YOU say so doesn't make it true.

"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

There are no exceptions to that law, therefore one could not take another person against their will.

No, you're right, it's not just because I say so. It's what the verses plainly say. You're bending over backward to ignore the numerous verses that talk about captives taken by the Israelites in war, and the plain wording of the passage. 

As I just pointed out to you, the "stealeth a man" list is part of a series of commands that had to do with how to treat fellow Israelites. It does not make it a blanket prohibition, or else the captives taken by Israel and put to servitude (the numerous "take the women who have not yet known a man!" verses we point out to you endlessly, to be endlessly ignored, or worse, "justified"), only a law against kidnapping.

Most of the verses in Leviticus 25 mainly with indentured servitude, the type you're desperately trying to pretend is the only type, but 44-46 deal specifically with a different system, slavery/bondsmen, and it specifically spells out the difference, as in: You may do _(bad things, including heritable ownership, "with rigor")_ to these foreign people, but not to your fellow Israelites. 

Seriously, take a fresh pair of eyes and explain to me what they could POSSIBLY have meant by the "but", at the end clause of verse 46. Here's the whole thing, in context:

System #1:

39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. 43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.

System #2:

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Get it now?

[Emphasis in bold, as always, my own.]

Silly, ignorant theists.

You can use the line, "Just because you say it, doesn't make it true."

However, you are clearly using that line because you have been backed into a corner of argument where you cannot properly respond.

Learn how to logic.

After all, those of us with real reasoning skills know that just because you state god is real does not make it thus.

The difference between the theist and the atheist is that the atheist has reason on his side. Any theist will always resort to a fancy answer that makes no sense in order to protect what cannot be salvaged.

(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You are confusing a constant conjunction for a principle that denotes a causal relationship.

What is the cause of life? It is life of course. There is definitely a cause and effect relationship here.

(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:  If there is some reason life comes only from life, you might have a candidate for a natural law, but as yet you have nothing but their constant conjunction.

You are being too philosophical here. Let's use a modern definition of "law,"

"A general principle, formula, or rule describing a phenomenon in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc: the laws of thermodynamics." Dictionary.com

The phenomenon in question is the cause of life and  the rule is that all "life comes from life." How does that not qualify as law, given that it is a fixed relationship?

(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:  If life did arise from non-life, then the conjunction isn't even constant.  But you are declaring that the conjunction is constant,

The conjunction as you put it, appears to be constant now, and has been for thousands of years. As a Christian I don't believe the conjunction was always that way otherwise I would be denying that God made Adam from the dust.

(March 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: so you are declaring that life never came from non-life, and that is begging the question.

Not at all. In the beginning God created life from the dust and then imbued all life with the capacity to reproduce after its own kind. This became the rule, or the law of how life was continued from that point on. There really is no conflict.

Tell me, if you believe in abiogenesis without there being any scientific proof of it, how is that not faith?

The fact that you believe life was created from dust means you are clearly deranged.

Wait a minute, aren't we all star dust according to science?

So, AJW333, what's your proof for the supernatural existing?

I'm posting this on every page you fail to respond to this simple question. Just in case people forget that you didn't present any so far.

(March 6, 2016 at 1:01 pm)Mamacita Wrote: For some reason, I can't quote your reply to me, so this is just in response to your most recent reply to me.

I don't think you read your own responses. Read it again and find what's wrong with your answer. This is exactly what I meant with "arrogance". OK. Let me paint your picture for you:

All powerful god is sitting there looking at our little world and all our troubles. He's "interested in our lives" (your words). All these kids over here are being sold like cattle for sex slave purposes. All these women are being sold, too. People are starving to death. Haddassah (she's 19 months old) has a tumor in her liver. She had chemo for the first time yesterday. Allie (she's four) has had chemo way too many times to count by now, and all other kinds of painful procedures. Jesse's dad raped him since he was five until he was twelve, and now Jesse is in trouble with the law, because he tried to do the same thing to another kid in school. Your all powerful god sat through all of it. Then he takes a look into the future and notices that grandpa is going to get a stroke. Oh, no! He's important. What can he do to save his life? No, silly, not stop the stroke from happening. Not erase that incident from the plan, you crazy. He makes your wife and sister in law dream it, so they can ask him nicely first. "Ladies, I'm going to kill him, but you can change my mind if you pray to me." 

Arrogant, you are.

Now lets be clear on something. I do not believe your god exists. Up until now, you have not presented any evidence. You have not convinced me that he is real. I'm not mad at your god for having such arrogant followers, because I can't be mad at someone I don't believe exists. I say this, because this is something you theists love to use as a weapon. I am, however, fucken tired of Christians telling me their god is interested in our lives. Not mad at their god, annoyed by the people who made him up. Why? How arrogant, selfish, and blind do you have to be to think that your story paints a loving god? I am a true believer that people with faith in a god tend to pick a god that matches their character. Your god (which again, let me be clear, is most likely fictitious) is an asshole. Match the god to the followers. 

In summary:
A) Interested in our lives? No. Interested in the lives of those that his followers deem important. Everyone else is dispensable. 
B) So your wife and sister in law could pray for him? Because they can change his mind? Because he's flawed? 

None of this matters, though. Until you have evidence that he is real, all this means is that you want to believe in a god that fits your needs. I haven't seen evidence. Carry on.

God could have made humanity with no free will. He could have created a bunch of automatons who never ever choose to do anything wrong. I would ask, what would be the point of that when you are a relational being?

Now if freewill is in play, God cannot continually thwart the bad people from doing their evil deeds otherwise freewill ceases to exist. I have reconciled the fact that this is the way things are. For many it seems terribly unfair. I understand that.

(March 7, 2016 at 8:56 pm)AJW333 Wrote: God could have made humanity with no free will. He could have created a bunch of automatons who never ever choose to do anything wrong. I would ask, what would be the point of that when you are a relational being?

Now if freewill is in play, God cannot continually thwart the bad people from doing their evil deeds otherwise freewill ceases to exist. I have reconciled the fact that this is the way things are. For many it seems terribly unfair. I understand that.

God, according to your definition is omniscient and omnipotent. So the above is shit. This is what it's actually is. As it always is when things get uncomfortable.



By the way, in case you missed it, what's your proof for the supernatural existing?

(March 6, 2016 at 4:13 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: You don't have a science degree of any sort, so cut the bullshit already!

Well one of us is lying so how about we have a wager. $10,000 says I have a degree in science from UNSW. You in?

(March 6, 2016 at 4:13 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: By their very nature, supernatural, miraculous occurrences defy scientific understanding only because they haven't been explained by science yet. They will be explained eventually,

This a completely arbitrary declaration. Ironically, the last is a prophecy based on faith.