The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Huggy Bear]

Actually, I did misremember slightly: we weren't talking about rape, but slavery.The word "slave" does not appear, and therefore it cannot be slavery.

So it WAS a bald faced lie then?
It's not SLAVERY Because you cannot FORCE someone into servitude ,it was a mutual contract, this practice still on in places like Haiti, where my mother in-law (wife is Haitian) has live in servants, in exchange for food and shelter, no one forced it on them, it was just better than the alternative.

Incidentally, you really shouldn't have challenged me on this point, because I'm having genuine trouble picking between instances of you using this exact same argument whenever it's convenient for you. Over multiple topics, in fact: Here's you asserting that the bible doesn't say you can own people as property, because it uses the word "possession" not "property."

Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not.

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.

"Stealing" is taking into your possession something that is not your property without consent. As you can see the Bible forbids this. If a person chooses to come under someones possession, he has every right to make that choice.
What two consenting adults agree to is between THEM, right?
The words "Slave" and "Slavery" each appear once in the KJV, and neither is speaking of one person owning another.

Also I'm still waiting on you to back up your statement.

And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

And here's you, in one of your most ridiculous moments, asserting that a particular homeopathic fraud can't be religious in nature because it's only called the "Jesus Shot," and the word "Christ" is never used.

You actually made the situation far, far worse for yourself than if you'd just shut the hell up and accepted your own idiotic behavior. And what was that about me lying? I found three references to that exact argument coming from you: I guess you were the one lying here, eh?

This is my exact quote

once again with the assumptions, where in the story that you linked, does it say anything about "Christ" or even states the man is religious? Because it's called the "Jesus shot"? Jesus is a pretty common name, besides it states in the story and I quote “I don’t know why [Lonergan] calls it that.” So I guess that makes it religious the same way scientists referring to the Higgs boson as the "God" particle makes them religious.

look I consider myself a christian, but believe religion to be evil, and can still realize this story has nothing to do with religion, just a sick individual.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...esus-shot/
The title of your link was "Three hundred dollars for a little Christ in your bloodstream." My question to you was "where is Christ mentioned in that specific story"?

If you can find it, let me know.
Don't get mad at me because your source of news just makes vague references and doesn't go into detail, that's just shoddy journalism.

---

For the record, the builder admitted that he built the castle using simple principles of leverage. Your argument from ignorance holds no water, even if we ignore the fallacy: you're asking us to believe the incredulity of a dullard who has never met the man who built the place, over the words of the man himself, and a friend of his who saw the work being done. I don't know why you think that holds any appeal at all.

If you can demonstrate moving 30 tons by using hand tools and leverage, by all means do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Leedskalnin

When people asked Leedskalnin how he had moved all of the stone by himself, he refused to give over his method and would only reply to whoever was asking with the same statement: "I understand the laws of weight and leverage and I know the secrets of the people who built the pyramids (being those at the site at Giza in Egypt)."

Magnetism

Leedskalnin's other four pamphlets addressed his theories on the interaction of electricity, magnetism and the body; Leedskalnin also included a number of simple experiments to validate his theories.

Contradicting the standard model of electromagnetism, his thesis is based upon the theory that the metal itself is not the magnet and that the real magnets are circulating in the metal. These individual north and south pole magnets are particles smaller than atoms or photons and each particle in the substance was an individual magnet by itself.

Leedskalnin claimed that all matter was being acted upon by what he called "individual magnets". He also claimed that scientists of his time were looking in the wrong place for their understanding of electricity and that they were only observing "one half of the whole concept" with "one sided tools of measurement". For instance:

Magnets in general are indestructible. For instance you can burn wood and flesh. You can destroy the body, but you cannot destroy the magnets that hold together the body. They go somewhere else. Iron has more magnets than wood, and every different substance has a different number of magnets that hold the substance together. If I make a battery with copper for positive terminal and beef for negative terminal I get more magnets out of it than when I used copper for positive terminal and sweet potato for negative terminal. From this you can see that no two things are alike.

You know what? It totally sounds like he moved the stones with hand tools and "leverage"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity

"Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means, such as lifters, which fly in the air by using electromagnetic fields.

His book on Amazon.
Magnetic Current

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
― Nikola Tesla