(March 6, 2014 at 12:21 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Nice,

The funny thing is, I have been called "immoral" many times in this thread but yet it's the "atheist" who having nothing of substance to add... stoops to making a mockery of the disabled.

No, what's really funny is seeing you blame everyone else, while ignoring that you yourself are the common element in all the sniping on this thread.

(March 6, 2014 at 12:21 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

---

(March 6, 2014 at 12:08 am)Rahul Wrote: Yep. Here. I'll post my favorite selfie of yours.



Remember this day, Huggy? It was the day you learned how to count all the way up to potato.

---

Nice,

The funny thing is, I have been called "immoral" many times in this thread but yet it's the "atheist" who having nothing of substance to add... stoops to making a mockery of the disabled.

If Superman had been disabled and ugly (but had all of his super powers) would he have been a popular guy?

If God exists but he looks like an ugly space alien from a sci-fi movie will religious folks still be eager to worship him (or it)?

If a person approves of slavery in the Bible would he be willing to live as a slave himself under such conditions?

Hi Huggy74, given your responses in this thread I have a couple of questions that I hope you'll answer. If we take the scenario that the biblical laws (with the associated legislative & social processes) for 'servitude' are in effect, would you:

1. hold someone in such servitude?

2. submit to being held in such servitude?

(March 6, 2014 at 6:49 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Hi Huggy74, given your responses in this thread I have a couple of questions that I hope you'll answer. If we take the scenario that the biblical laws (with the associated legislative & social processes) for 'servitude' are in effect, would you:

1. hold someone in such servitude?

As I said earlier, we are not talking about a currency based system here. wealth = land, crops and livestock. If you were poor and owned no land, you would need to find a "landlord" and "trade" your labor in exchange for a place to live and a small percentage of the crops, which in turn you would trade for whatever else you needed.

I've shown where it was illegal to kidnap people and force them to be slaves, If you wanted to be a servant you chose so of your own free will.

Anyone that can say it is an "immoral" system, is being disingenuous. If we were to go back to a "trade" based system today, people that contributed to society (ie. farmers and tradesmen) would go back to being important and everyone in the entertainment industry would go back to being poor.

(March 6, 2014 at 6:49 am)Ben Davis Wrote: 2. submit to being held in such servitude?

I already do. I have a mortage ("dead pledge"), which means I do not own my home, but instead have agreed to give a portion of my labor for 30 years. And to bring it back around to my first post, we all are already slaves, it's just that you guys don't realize it.

The American Dollar is "Fiat currency"

Definition of 'Fiat Money' Currency

currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but is not backed by a physical commodity. The value of fiat money is derived from the relationship between supply and demand rather than the value of the material that the money is made of.

so ask yourself, what makes a $1 bill worth more that a $100? The dollar is no different than monopoly money other than our faith in it.

so if you work for something that has no value, how are you not a slave?

(March 6, 2014 at 9:40 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

---

(March 6, 2014 at 6:49 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Hi Huggy74, given your responses in this thread I have a couple of questions that I hope you'll answer. If we take the scenario that the biblical laws (with the associated legislative & social processes) for 'servitude' are in effect, would you:

1. hold someone in such servitude?

As I said earlier, we are not talking about a currency based system here. wealth = land, crops and livestock. If you were poor and owned no land, you would need to find a "landlord" and "trade" your labor in exchange for a place to live and a small percentage of the crops, which in turn you would trade for whatever else you needed.

I've shown where it was illegal to kidnap people and force them to be slaves, If you wanted to be a servant you chose so of your own free will.

Anyone that can say it is an "immoral" system, is being disingenuous. If we were to go back to a "trade" based system today, people that contributed to society (ie. farmers and tradesmen) would go back to being important and everyone in the entertainment industry would go back to being poor.

(March 6, 2014 at 6:49 am)Ben Davis Wrote: 2. submit to being held in such servitude?

I already do. I have a mortage ("dead pledge"), which means I do not own my home, but instead have agreed to give a portion of my labor for 30 years. And to bring it back around to my first post, we all are already slaves, it's just that you guys don't realize it.

The American Dollar is "Fiat currency"

Definition of 'Fiat Money' Currency

currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but is not backed by a physical commodity. The value of fiat money is derived from the relationship between supply and demand rather than the value of the material that the money is made of.

so ask yourself, what makes a $1 bill worth more that a $100? The dollar is no different than monopoly money other than our faith in it.

so if you work for something that has no value, how are you not a slave?

---

---

---

The things that are telling about your post:

1. You refuse to acknowledge the 'ownership of people as property' rules in the biblical laws of 'servitude'. In fact, you seem to talk about every other rule in a fairly knowledgeable way so I have to assume you're aware that the rules explicitly stated that people were owned as property.

2. Your failure to directly answer the questions

So to your answers:

1. It matters not whether the society was feudal, agrarian, capitalist, communist, anarchist or anything else. So I'll rephrase my question to (hopefully!) make you commit to a direct answer: given the opportunity, would you own another person as property?

2. Once again a dodge. Your mortgage does not strip you of your right to self-determination. So once again, I'll rephrase: would you submit to being stripped of your right to self-determination?

(March 6, 2014 at 10:18 am)Ben Davis Wrote: The things that are telling about your post:

1. You refuse to acknowledge the 'ownership of people as property' rules in the biblical laws of 'servitude'. In fact, you seem to talk about every other rule in a fairly knowledgeable way so I have to assume you're aware that the rules explicitly stated that people were owned as property.

already been over this many times.
show me in the King James version where it "explicitly states" people be owned as property

Quote:2. Your failure to directly answer the questions

I'll answer your question and in turn i'll ask you a direct yes or no
question, do you believe the words "property' an "possession" to mean the same thing?

Quote:So to your answers:

1. It matters not whether the society was feudal, agrarian, capitalist, communist, anarchist or anything else. So I'll rephrase my question to (hopefully!) make you commit to a direct answer: given the opportunity, would you own another person as property?

No

Quote:2. Once again a dodge. Your mortgage does not strip you of your right to self-determination. So once again, I'll rephrase: would you submit to being stripped of your right to self-determination?

yes

it seems everything has to be spelled out for you guys. Self determination is defined as: determination by oneself or itself, without outside influence, or freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting another or others. So therefore by having a mortgage I take on something called "responsibility" . My "self determination" may be to sit at home all day everyday and relax, but if I want to keep my house I need to have a job like it or not.

(March 6, 2014 at 11:16 am)Huggy74 Wrote: show me in the King James version where it "explicitly states" people be owned as property

Leviticus 25:44-46

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.

I can't believe you're defending this...

(March 6, 2014 at 1:40 pm)ThePinsir Wrote:

(March 6, 2014 at 11:16 am)Huggy74 Wrote: show me in the King James version where it "explicitly states" people be owned as property

Leviticus 25:44-46

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.

I can't believe you're defending this...

(Although I've been over this already.)

So to be clear, you are saying that the words possession and property mean the same thing. Yes or no?

(March 6, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: (Although I've been over this already.)

So to be clear, you are saying that the words possession and property mean the same thing. Yes or no?

And to be clear, you disingenuous little turd, a possession- which is the use actually in the text- denotes property, and is inapplicable to you utterly execrable excuse about "taking possession" that you used on me.

(March 6, 2014 at 2:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 6, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: (Although I've been over this already.)

So to be clear, you are saying that the words possession and property mean the same thing. Yes or no?

And to be clear, you disingenuous little turd, a possession- which is the use actually in the text- denotes property, and is inapplicable to you utterly execrable excuse about "taking possession" that you used on me.

simple yes or no question, I'm accused of always dodging, but whenever I'm pressed for a yes or no answer I give it.

So give me a yes or no answer, then we can move forward.