The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Esquilax]

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

Yeah, because a constant barrage of arguments from ignorance is so terrifying.

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

So, at best this is a contradiction. The other passages aren't erased just because you can point to another passage that says something different. It's already pretty well established that the bible says a lot of crisscrossing, contradictory things that allow you to interpret it any way you like.

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.

The specified time was for Jews enslaving other Jews, you unbelievable idiot. The passage I quoted specifically uses the term "permanent inheritance" as the thing you do with your foreign slaves; this isn't some temporary deal, you can pass them down to your children permanently.

There's also absolutely no indication that the money gets paid to the slaves themselves- in fact that contradicts the whole basis of the instruction- and the language doesn't support that interpretation either, but since this is all about the desperate scrabbling you do to interpret everything according to the conclusion you came to before even starting the conversation, you're just kinda proving my point here.

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.

Oh, so if I give away something, it was never my property to begin with? Or do you understand how ridiculous your logic is in every other situation but the one that suits your own ends?

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

Yes, but you're equivocating wildly, and you know that. The bible doesn't specify that consent needs to be a part of slavery, in fact there's a New Testament parable that Jesus tells, where returning a slave that escaped is painted as a good act; are you telling me that the slave literally running away from slavery still consented to be a slave?

Again with the faulty translation

It's the NIV, an official version of the bible. You disagreeing with it does not mean the translation is dodgy, it means that you don't like it, but your personal fucking preferences are not the sole arbiter of whether bible translations count, and I certainly am not limited to only things Huggy likes, when I'm arguing.

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.

Right, so you're allowed to beat your slaves so hard that they die, just so long as they don't do it immediately. And this is a special category of violence, made just for slaves, where free men are treated differently... and yet you say there's no distinction between a free man and a slave, so... oh, look: another contradiction.

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".

Oh, is Jesus not a big part of christianity? Or are you just being ridiculous again?

you stated that he used "leverage" as if it was fact.

Well, when the guy who literally did it said so, and when an eyewitness who was a friend of the guy corroborates that, I think that's better evidence than you, who's never even met the guy, baselessly asserting you know more than the person who literally built the place.

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".

So, I point out the argument from ignorance and burden shifting, and you respond with... an argument from ignorance, and burden shifting. Well, at least you're consistent.

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

I bet I could make the coral castle appear to be a part of a drawing of Snoopy, if I got to pick and choose which locations were significant beforehand, in order to reach my presupposed conclusion that the Snoopy drawing is there for a reason. You seem to have real trouble with this, but the fact that you're incredulous about something isn't evidence that something significant is going on. It's just evidence that you're incredulous, which isn't surprising given your... rather limited mindset.

Hey, did you call into the Atheist Experience multiple times a few years ago? I seem to recall a caller there that had the same "I don't know how this happened, therefore space magic," attitude toward the pyramids that you do. He really stressed the fact that he didn't know, displayed his ignorance like it was something to be proud of: reminds me of you, in that respect.