The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Huggy Bear]

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...

Too late, you opened Pandora's box, you should of known better.

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:34


Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. - Exodus 23:9

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.

Who do you think received the money for this transaction? It was the guy selling himself into servitude for a SPECIFIED time or until Jubilee when everyone was free by default.

Leviticus 25
13 In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.

See? In jubile they had to relinquish possession by default, they were NOT property.

Genesis 29
15 And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?
16 And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured.
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
19 And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.

You failed to answer my question, I'll ask again.
What two consenting adults agree to is between THEM right?

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.

Again with the faulty translation

Exodus 21
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

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.

See verse 12

Exodus 21
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

See verse 19
The reason he doesn't have to pay the servant for his time is because HE ALREADY PAID HIM when he agreed to be a servant.

Exodus 21
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

So, NO the Bible does NOT condone beating your servant, if you did so and maimed them, it voided the contract, and you lost your investment.

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.

The point was, the story wasn't about "religion" it was about a guy that was mentally ill, yet you wanted to focus the story on religion when the story never mentioned religion in the first place, just simply "Jesus".

Got it?

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.

you stated that he used "leverage" as if it was fact. Surely you can find some evidence of 30 tons being moved and transported in this manner. Never mind the fact that no one ever witnessed him actually moving the stone, since he only worked at night. Explain how it's possible to cut a stone, transport it 10 miles from the quarry, and erect it in a single night using just "hand tools " and"leverage".

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.

Here you go.

---

Line between (1) and (21): Alexandria and Giza, Egypt
Line between (1) and (12): Jerusalem, Israel
Line between (11) and (20): Stonehenge, England
(12): The ancient city of Mohenjo Daro, Pakistan
(13): Pyramids around the city Xian, China
(14): The Devil's Sea or Dragon's Triangle
(17): Megalithic sites of Tiwanaku, Bolivia
(18): The Bermuda Triangle, and Coral Castle in Florida
Line between (18) and (37): Bimini Road, Bimini
Line between (18) and (33): Pyramid of Kukulcán, Yucatán
Line between (20) and (2): Ruins of Djémila, Algeria
Line between (21) and (12): Ruins of Axum, Ethiopia
(25): The temple of Angkor Wat, Cambodia
(26): Megalithic sites, Sarawak and Borneo
(28): The megalithic city of Nan Madol, Pohnpei
(35): Megalithic sites and the Nazca lines, Peru
(40): Ancient mines and structures, Zimbabwe
(47): Megalithic sites and statues, Easter Island
(62): South Pole, Antartica

---

http://talc.site88.net/mega.htm

Many megalithic sites from over the world seem to be build at or nearby an intersection of ley lines, including the large pyramids from various ancient cultures, by which they are connected to each other like in a network.

As you can see, coral castle is situated at one of the intersections.
I'm sure this is just one HUGE coincidence