Pat Robertson says it's ok to ignore parts of the Bible.

[Cato]

Why did you leave off the last part?

It's called editing. I edited your response down to one single aspect, of one question i chose to respond to. Like with the rest of the post i am now responding to. i chose to simply ignore the rest.

Why? Because I am not here to argue personal philosophies or how you 'feel' about God. In short I am not here to take anything from you or make you believe as I do. i am here to simply answer biblically based questions. as only one part of one question had anything to do with the bible. i choose to address it in such a way as to help me discern whether or not you (Or anyone else) was actually interest in in why slavery is not an 'all bad thing.' (because it is a rather lengthy explanation and I am not going to throw my pearls before swine) As you saw fit to rehash your desire to engage in a personally fueled pride based arguement, You have empowered me the option to either dismiss the rest of your efforts, or I can explain myself in such a way as to make you look the fool for predictably responding to my baited post. what to do next..

Your hook is still without bait. You came to me in this thread and I wasn't even fishing.

Pearls before swine, give me a break. Why do you parade around as if I have never read the best selling book of all time? What's next? John 3:16? Or was this your covert way of saying I'm not worthy?

My personal feelings about your God are not in play here, what is (and has been) up for discussion is how your God, throughout the Bible, treats the concept of slavery. You are at an impasse.

You can either admit that your God is a cunt on this point and join the rest of humanity, or you can continue to condone slavery because the thousands year old character that men invented in order to control the crowd assumed slavery was a normal part of existence.

There's no silly scriptual dance out of your choice here.