No, silly. Not when a white person was talking to a black person. When a white person was referring about a black person to another white person.

(March 1, 2014 at 10:47 pm)truthBtold Wrote: How do u know what translation/ bible is to be the right one?

The King James Version is the standard, but you still need to reference the original Greek at times to find out what some words actually mean.

(March 2, 2014 at 1:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: You do understand that merely calling them servants doesn't actually make them servants if they weren't treated like them, right? Propagandists do this all the time, calling something one thing while acting as if it were another. That's why what you're doing is semantics; you're happy to call these people servants, and ignore the instructions for how they are to be treated, which includes beating them, passing them down as property- you can't do that with a servant - and buying them.

Show me where Bible instructs anyone to beat their servant? I can show you where it is recommended that you use the "rod" on your kids. But oddly enough, I don't hear any atheist complaining about the Bible supporting child abuse, why? Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Propagandists have an agenda. They use words/pictures in a way to get the masses to react emotionally. This is why every "Atheist" that has posted a scripture from the Bible uses the "New Living Translation" which was published in 1996. So why this version over the many other translations? Because it fits your agenda.

You see the word "slave" which doesn't appear in the King James Version (published in 1611) has much more negative implications than the word "servant" which automatically make us think of the american slave trade, which would have been illegal according to the Bible, since you could not kidnap and/or force someone into servitude.

(March 2, 2014 at 1:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: It's a profoundly dishonest tactic, but then again, dishonesty and doublespeak is all you have.

Here is an example of doublespeak.

(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Leviticus 25
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves. They were treated as property, they were not paid, and they could not leave whenever they wanted. The fact that you are appealing to word games is pathetic.

(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave"

Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?

(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: they were paid a pittance. here is part of a post I found describing life in that time period.

Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves.

LOL,
nice of you coming to Bad Wolf's defense though.

(March 2, 2014 at 1:31 am)Rahul Wrote: True. If you visited the Southern States of the US in the years leading up to the US Civil War you would hear the word "slave" hardly ever used, even though slaves were everywhere.

Everyone, especially slave owners, would call them "servants". Very, very rarely would they be referred to as "slaves". And never in polite company. Or to outsiders.

I am both black, and from the south (Mississippi). But I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt and request that you post your sources. Because I can find plenty of sources that would contradict your ridiculous statement.

(March 2, 2014 at 4:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Show me where Bible instructs anyone to beat their servant?

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"

So, you can beat them, that's cool with god. And, incidentally, since I know you're going to try and reduce this by talking about "oh, you can't beat them to death!" as if that makes violent assault okay, do you know how hard you have to beat someone to make them die a few days later? It's still pretty fucking hard, and it's still murder.

Quote: I can show you where it is recommended that you use the "rod" on your kids. But oddly enough, I don't hear any atheist complaining about the Bible supporting child abuse, why? Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Or because you haven't been fucking paying attention: there are plenty of posts here in the past of atheists pointing out not only that passage, but also the one where you're supposed to stone unruly children to death, or the one where god sends bears to kill children, and making sure our position on biblical child abuse is clear.

We've had whole threads on the Elisha situation, so you're just factually wrong here.

Quote:Propagandists have an agenda.

Yours is to make the bible look good, no matter what you have to do to get there.

Quote: They use words/pictures in a way to get the masses to react emotionally. This is why every "Atheist" that has posted a scripture from the Bible uses the "New Living Translation" which was published in 1996. So why this version over the many other translations? Because it fits your agenda.

You know, I went and looked at your standard king james translation, to see if there was any substantial difference. Aside from calling the slaves "bondsmen," there isn't. You still buy them from other tribes, you still pass them onto your children, and you still can beat them so that they die, just not right away.

Aside from using a happier word for the practice, which I already showed is merely a smoke screen to cover an atrocity, the content is exactly the same. So, clearly, there's no agenda here; I am accurately reflecting the practices of the book, I'm just not willing to lie to make them sound okay, like you are.

Quote:You see the word "slave" which doesn't appear in the King James Version (published in 1611) has much more negative implications than the word "servant" which automatically make us think of the american slave trade, which would have been illegal according to the Bible, since you could not kidnap and/or force someone into servitude.

A slave by any other name, motherfucker. Like I said, you can call them whatever you like, but in practice, it's still slavery. Beatings, forced work, sexual slavery for the girls, and getting passed along like property. I don't care if you decide to call it "blowjob ninja action squad," it's still the fucking slave trade.

And you might not be able to force someone into servitude, but it says to buy your slaves from other tribes, who don't follow those rules. You aren't going to weasel out of this one.

Quote:I am both black, and from the south (Mississippi). But I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt and request that you post your sources. Because I can find plenty of sources that would contradict your ridiculous statement.

Are you also hard of understanding? Because Rahul specifically said leading up to the civil war.

(March 2, 2014 at 4:35 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 2, 2014 at 4:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Show me where Bible instructs anyone to beat their servant?

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)"

So, you can beat them, that's cool with god. And, incidentally, since I know you're going to try and reduce this by talking about "oh, you can't beat them to death!" as if that makes violent assault okay, do you know how hard you have to beat someone to make them die a few days later? It's still pretty fucking hard, and it's still murder.

Like I said you have an agenda, which is why you took the scripture out of context.

Exodus 21

18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

It Seems I have to spell it out for you. Verse 18 is talking about striking someone who isn't a servant, if he doesn't die then you owe him money for his time lost from work. if he strikes a servant and he "continues" meaning his injuries don't get any worse. then he isn't punished because the time the servant spent in recovery is already coming out of pocket.

what is the punishment if they die?
Exodus 21
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
there is no difference if servant or not. So I very much doubt beating a servant was common practice. Ever heard the phrase "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? That would be one of the ten commandments.

(March 2, 2014 at 4:35 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 2, 2014 at 4:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I can show you where it is recommended that you use the "rod" on your kids. But oddly enough, I don't hear any atheist complaining about the Bible supporting child abuse, why? Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Or because you haven't been fucking paying attention: there are plenty of posts here in the past of atheists pointing out not only that passage, but also the one where you're supposed to stone unruly children to death, or the one where god sends bears to kill children, and making sure our position on biblical child abuse is clear.

We've had whole threads on the Elisha situation, so you're just factually wrong here.

Ok, let's talk about Elisha
If you knew anything about the Bible you would know if God ever appoints a man as a Prophet he has to always back what the Prophet says. Which is why he told Moses he was a god (lowercase)
Exodus 7
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh:
Moses ended up getting into trouble when God told him to speak to a rock to provide water for the Hebrews, but he lost his temper because of all the complaining and struck the rock(which represents Jesus being pierced and the water flowing from the wound), the water still flowed but Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land because of what he did.

In Elisha's case he lost his temper because of the teasing and abused is power, clearly in the wrong. Nothing to do with God.

Or how about King David getting another mans wife pregnant and then trying to cover it up, eventually having the husband sent to the front lines of a battle hoping he would die. God had David anointed as king and David abused the power and was subsequently punished for it.

All it means is that they are human. Think about it, if you had the power to kill someone with a word how high would your body count be?

(March 2, 2014 at 4:35 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 2, 2014 at 4:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I am both black, and from the south (Mississippi). But I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt and request that you post your sources. Because I can find plenty of sources that would contradict your ridiculous statement.

Are you also hard of understanding? Because Rahul specifically said leading up to the civil war.

All I asked was for him to state his sources, otherwise he should't be commenting out of his posterior. You have a problem with that?

Quote:Ok, let's talk about Elisha
If you knew anything about the Bible you would know if God ever appoints a man as a Prophet he has to always back what the Prophet says. Which is why he told Moses he was a god (lowercase)

Sorry - I am calling bullshit on this. Lets look at the passage - and I have used the KJV as its your favourite:

KINGS 2: 23-24

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.


Elisha is not dong this in is apparently godly role - he is doing this "in the name of the Lord," AKA GOD.

"And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Does it say the god Elisha summoned 2 bears from the woods - no, they came forth after he cursed the children in the name of the Lord.

There's just no limit to how you guys reinterpret the Bible, or borrow from one totally unrelated story to support another is there.

Children that tease a prophet over his bald head get ripped apart by bears. God sanctions this. If he didn't he would have stopped the bears. There is simply no way to wriggle out of this.

(March 2, 2014 at 6:08 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Like I said you have an agenda, which is why you took the scripture out of context.

How does the context change my contention with it?

Seriously, we're still talking about a situation through which you can own a person, beat that person near to death, just so long as they survive, and suffer no penalty for this. Why do they suffer no penalty? Oh yes, because the person they beat belonged to them.

That sound moral to you?

Quote:It Seems I have to spell it out for you. Verse 18 is talking about striking someone who isn't a servant, if he doesn't die then you owe him money for his time lost from work. if he strikes a servant and he "continues" meaning his injuries don't get any worse. then he isn't punished because the time the servant spent in recovery is already coming out of pocket.

So, basically, your position, in summation: a violent assault on a "servant" (read: slave) is perfectly okay, because the "servant" owner has to pay for his property to be repaired... so he can beat it again, if he so chooses.

And that's a position you're actually defending, as though my contention had nothing to do with the "I just got away with near murder" thing.

Quote:what is the punishment if they die?

Nothing, if that death happens a day or two later.

Quote:there is no difference if servant or not.

Bare assertion, certainly not supported by the text itself.

Quote: So I very much doubt beating a servant was common practice. Ever heard the phrase "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? That would be one of the ten commandments.

And as we all know, "thou shalt not kill" has some pretty huge caveats in it, where you can kill witches, unruly children, people from other tribes, people of other religions, people who work on the sabbath... So let's not pretend that this commandment is one that remains unbroken, even in the bible.

Quote:Ok, let's talk about Elisha

No. I've got no interest in rehashing old ground with an apologist, because I know the kind of filthy crap you'll pull to cover for atrocities. I brought up Elisha because it was the most recent applicable example we had on record to show that you were wrong on your "atheists don't care about biblical child abuse" claim, and now, instead of just owning up to your incorrect notion and backing down, you're attempting to dodge.

Do you accept that you were wrong, in the claim I initially brought up Elisha on to rebut?

Quote:All it means is that they are human. Think about it, if you had the power to kill someone with a word how high would your body count be?

Zero, because I'm not a sociopath, unlike your god.

Quote:All I asked was for him to state his sources, otherwise he should't be commenting out of his posterior. You have a problem with that?

I have a problem with how you began your response, which implied that Rahul stated this was going on today, or else was just terribly redundant.

(March 1, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: How is a hired servant vs slave semantics? You do realize hired means paid right? So then why would you insist that they weren't paid when I clearly showed you an instance were they were. You can't be paid and be a "slave" now can you.

If you aren't playing semantics then this discussion is a complete waste of time. I am talking about slaves, you are talking about servants. Completely different things. Unless you are denying the existence of slaves?

(March 1, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Also I explained the word "slave" only appears one time in the KJV (and not in relation to humans) of the Bible which was published in 1611, the NLT version was published in 1996 (lol) and is not an accurate translation. I don't know anyone that uses the NLT translation except "athiest", because apparently it fits your agenda. If the words "servant" and "slave" are semantics, then you shouldn't mind posting from the KJV.

Fancy that. When the bible says something you disagree with, its 'not an accurate translation' but the rest of the time, its spot on.

---

Huggy you really are fucking pathetic. As if there is a context in which owning another human being is moral. And even more than that, you're fucking denying slavery existed. We have shown you the bible verses that clearly state the conditions of slavery. And you have the balls to claim that that particular bible is wrong and you are right? Absolutely fucking pathetic. And I see Frodo giving kudos to this joker, you wanna jump in some time and tell us why you agree with huggy that slavery didn't exist. Because that's all i'm getting from you liking his posts. How about that coward?

(March 2, 2014 at 6:23 am)max-greece Wrote: Children that tease a prophet over his bald head get ripped apart by bears. God sanctions this. If he didn't he would have stopped the bears. There is simply no way to wriggle out of this.

Did you miss the part Where I said Elisha was "clearly in the wrong" for what he did? I'm just saying that's on Elisha not God. If God Appoints a prophet, then he is bound to honor the word of the prophet (But believe me you will get in trouble if you use that power for personal gain). So he couldn't have "stopped" the bears because Elisha was already vindicated as a prophet. In other words if the bears didn't come Elisha would be labeled as a false prophet.

(March 2, 2014 at 6:39 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, basically, your position, in summation: a violent assault on a "servant" (read: slave) is perfectly okay, because the "servant" owner has to pay for his property to be repaired... so he can beat it again, if he so chooses.

And that's a position you're actually defending, as though my contention had nothing to do with the "I just got away with near murder" thing.

My position is that if you kill anyone the penalty is death, if you injured someone who wasn't a servant you owed him money. If you injured a servant and he didn't die, (doesn't matter if he died 3 or 4 days later the murder rule would still apply) you didn't owe him money because you already paid him, since He had to sell himself into servitude in the first place.
Exodus 21
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

This scripture is clear, you cannot force someone into slavery or be found in possession of someone who was forced into slavery. There are no loopholes, please show evidence that they could buy someone that was forced from another nation.

(March 2, 2014 at 6:39 am)Esquilax Wrote: And as we all know, "thou shalt not kill" has some pretty huge caveats in it, where you can kill witches, unruly children, people from other tribes, people of other religions, people who work on the sabbath... So let's not pretend that this commandment is one that remains unbroken, even in the bible.

The actual translation is "thou halt not commit Murder". The Law wasn't established until Moses. Why are the Jews called the chosen people? because God chose to give them the Law to show that it is impossible to gain salvation based on works. To break any of the 10 commandments is a capital offense.

Witches..
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Unruly children(this only applies to those above the age of 16, those younger aren't accountable for their actions)...
"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

People from other tribes.. as far as that's concerned war is not murder.

people of other religions
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

people who work on the sabbath...
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

(March 2, 2014 at 6:39 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:All it means is that they are human. Think about it, if you had the power to kill someone with a word how high would your body count be?

Zero, because I'm not a sociopath, unlike your god.

We'll excuse me Mr. pinnacle of all righteousness, I guess you'd be the one exception to "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

(March 2, 2014 at 6:39 am)Esquilax Wrote: I have a problem with how you began your response, which implied that Rahul stated this was going on today, or else was just terribly redundant.

It would make absolutely no sense for me to "imply" what he said is going today. Seeing how the situation was much worse for slaves then, than it is now. smh

(March 2, 2014 at 8:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote: This scripture is clear, you cannot force someone into slavery or be found in possession of someone who was forced into slavery. There are no loopholes, please show evidence that they could buy someone that was forced from another nation.

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

You were saying.....

(March 2, 2014 at 8:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The actual translation is "thou halt not commit Murder". The Law wasn't established until Moses. Why are the Jews called the chosen people? because God chose to give them the Law to show that it is impossible to gain salvation based on works. To break any of the 10 commandments is a capital offense.

Witches..
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Unruly children(this only applies to those above the age of 16, those younger aren't accountable for their actions)...
"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

People from other tribes.. as far as that's concerned war is not murder.

people of other religions
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

people who work on the sabbath...
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Oh you're one of those Christians. God said it, so its right. You are an immoral thug

(March 2, 2014 at 8:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote: My position is that if you kill anyone the penalty is death, if you injured someone who wasn't a servant you owed him money. If you injured a servant and he didn't die, (doesn't matter if he died 3 or 4 days later the murder rule would still apply) you didn't owe him money because you already paid him, since He had to sell himself into servitude in the first place.

That's what I said: there's no penalty for beating your slaves. No matter how you choose to phrase it, that's what's really going on here: you are allowed to beat, without penalty, a person whom you have bought from another tribe, kept as property, passed down to your children... a slave.

Quote:Exodus 21
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

This scripture is clear, you cannot force someone into slavery or be found in possession of someone who was forced into slavery. There are no loopholes, please show evidence that they could buy someone that was forced from another nation.

"You may buy your slaves from the heathen around you," doesn't say anything about where they might have come from, just that you're allowed to buy them. Besides, the issue of whether they were forced or not misses the point; there are plenty of ways to scam a person into slavery without directly forcing them. There are modern human trafficking rings who could tell you that. But the point is that slavery of any type is immoral; how is it that you're excusing desperate, destitute men being forced to take part in a system they have no alternative but to take part in, and being forced to work forever, as moral?

What in that is moral, to you? What context makes that okay?

Quote:The actual translation is "thou halt not commit Murder". The Law wasn't established until Moses. Why are the Jews called the chosen people? because God chose to give them the Law to show that it is impossible to gain salvation based on works. To break any of the 10 commandments is a capital offense.

Oh goody, here we go with the "oh, it's not really killing," bullshit. What's the use of a commandment like that, if you can just define as many loopholes as you want into what counts?

Quote:We'll excuse me Mr. pinnacle of all righteousness, I guess you'd be the one exception to "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Yep, because I definitely said I was perfect. That's what happened here, you dishonest prick.