The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Huggy Bear]

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.

I already told you that you're using a bastardized version of the Bible, I get why you do it...it supports your agenda, Just don't talk about discrepancies.

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.

What part of "In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession." do you not understand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_%28Christianity%29

In the Biblical Book of Leviticus, a Jubilee year is mentioned to occur every fiftieth year, in which slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven and the mercies of God would be particularly manifest.

Explain how you still figure it's permanent?
According to Leviticus, slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven and the mercies of God would be particularly manifest.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

Voluntary slavery (or self-sale) is the condition of slavery entered into at a point of voluntary consent. In ancient times, this was a common way for impoverished people to provide subsistence for themselves or their family and provision was made for this in law. For example, the code of Hammurabi stated that "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an individual might sell himself or a family member into slavery." In medieval Russia, self-sale was the main source of slaves.

In ancient times, one of the most direct ways to become a Roman or Greek citizen was by means of a self-sale contract. The laws surrounding Roman and Greek manumission made it quite possible for such erstwhile slaves to then become citizens or near-citizens themselves.

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 do realize there is a concept of borrowing right? where you eventually have to give back something that doesn't belong to you...

Yes, but you're equivocating wildly, and you know that. The bible doesn't specify that consent needs to be a part of slavery,

But it does, apparently you didn't bother reading my post.

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.

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?

A parable? That's all you have? In case you didn't know, a parable is an analogy, obviously not to be taken literally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable

A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters. A parable is a type of analogy.

It's the NIV, an official version of the bible.

Obviously not....
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanin...paging=off

When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.

The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV).

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.

The NIV translation IS dodgy, it's missing WHOLE SCRIPTURES. Like I said, you use whatever version fits your argument.

Okay, but I think it's interesting that you don't already know this:

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

You kinda fucked up, there. That's the whole verse though, so no whining about context, and if you try to play if off by referring to the last sentence, I'll have to tell you again that that's restricted to the Jews only.

Here you've clearly used KJV before, what happened?

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.

Haven't hear of the sixth commandment? thou shalt not kill?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder" or "kill", but it has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".

According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[3] but if the killing is accidental, the accused must not leave the city, or he will be considered guilty of intentional murder.[4] The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.[5][6]

The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit n-k-h

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.

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

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

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.

If you physically injured them, they were to be set free. Tell me again how this is a "special category of violence, made just for slaves".

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

So there is one Jesus that ever existed
The point is, If you see a mentally I'll person doing something crazy in the name of "Jesus", assume it's the mental illness making him do it, not the Christianity....

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.

Who's the eyewitness?

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.

You stated that coral castle was built "using simple principles of leverage".
If you BELIEVE that statement, then there must be some evidence of this being accomplished right? Or do you accept that statement based on faith?

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.

Where have I said that I know how the pyramids were built? I clearly said NO ONE knows how they were built, it would be impossible to cut the Huge stones (so precisely that a razorblades can't fit between them) with primitive tools. You're the one that offered an explanation, when you clearly don't know what you are talking about, THAT is arguing from ignorance.
found a better picture.

---

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

---

Just so we're clear, are you stating that this is all just mere coincidence?