The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Esquilax]

So it was a bald faced lie then?

Lies, by definition, require intentional dishonesty. I merely had a lapse in memory, like the kind I'm sure everyone has every day, and I corrected it immediately once I found out. The thread in question is two years old, it's not amazingly strange that I'd forget at least parts of it, and if you weren't desperately scrabbling for reasons to disagree, you'd understand that. For a normal person, it'd be a simple matter to just accept that a brain fart happened, but as your signature shows, your standard operating procedure when people are mistaken is to either crow relentlessly about it, or dash to assume nefarious intent.

Like a child would.

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.

I don't want to derail this thread, but the thread I linked to has the answer: you're only talking about Jews enslaving Jews, not Jews enslaving anyone else, which is not a contract business... but then, since this is all about the ridiculous lengths you're willing to go to to preserve a shitty belief, I don't doubt you'll maintain what you say regardless. Reasonable people can see the thread, though; it's there, so it's not like you can hide behind ignorance, like you like to.

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

Yeah, see, exactly the ridiculous bullshit I was talking about.

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.

If you can purchase people, it entails that you "possess" them as property; purchasing things is literally what that means, by definition.

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.

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.

I've done this before. Your ridiculous response was that this says it is okay if you beat them, not that you should. Quibbles like that are exactly what I was referring to, when I pointed out your selective, self serving literalism. You lose the ability to read context clues or see consequences whenever it's convenient to you.

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.

Why do you think repeating a ridiculous quote makes it better? You're willing to claim that he just picked a random, unrelated name for the shot, blind to the significance that the name "Jesus" has, rather than take part in the simple cultural context clue that anyone else would make. Absurd, self serving literalism. The fact that you're still okay with it is the point: you are a terrible, dishonest debater.

If you can demonstrate moving 30 tons by using hand tools and leverage, by all means do so.

Yes, I'm aware you love to shift the burden of proof, in aid of your arguments from ignorance. That doesn't suddenly mean it's okay.

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)."

Yeah, the pyramids were built by utilizing weight and leverage. Your are reading in additional information not present in the quote because it suits your argument, but nobody else is required to share in your unjustified presupposition of magic or sci fi technology. You can't cover for an assertion with a quote that doesn't say what you think it says, and then a repetition of the assertion.

You know what? It totally sounds like he moved the stones with hand tools and "leverage"

So what if he had some ideas? Doesn't mean they worked; in fact, if they didn't- and you have no evidence at all that they did- then he would be forced to use the standard laws of physics in his construction. Once again, you're making an argument that only functions if you presuppose the truth of the argument and ignore the fact that it's completely unjustified.

He also has a book on Amazon.
Magnetic Current

So do I. Doesn't mean I'm a millionaire with a sexy butler, even though that's the content of my book. Surprisingly, people can write books about things that aren't real. Deepak Chopra has made a living out of it, though you probably believe his crap too, since he wrote it down and you can't think of another way his success could have happened.