A Former Atheist

[Thumpalumpacus]

Atheists seem to be obsessed with the supernatural. God doesn't necessarily imply the supernatural, it implies might or veneration. Moses, Jesus, Tammuz, and the Judges of Israel were called gods and were men and women. Mortal.

So, you're going to equivocate the meaning of the word "god". Okay.

I'm not defending slavery. I'm pointing out that slavery existed during the times of the Bible, it differs from more recent versions of slavery and it was invented by men, not gods. In doing so I most certainly am not condoning slavery, but rather, suggesting there are more insidious forms of slavery we are all subjected to today.

Your holy book accepts slavery as moral. That was my point, since you clearly missed it.

A typical asshole, I suppose, but I don't think it is okay by any means to own another human being.

You'd better take that up with the god you claim to worship, then. He clearly thinks otherwise.

But yeah, typical, run of the mill apologist asshole.  Have you met Drich?

I don't need to speak directly to him, it was all written down long before I got here.

... by fallible men, as you yourself have taken pains to point out.

Everyone has faith. You need to be more specific in referencing what it is you have no faith in.

No, I don't have faith.  You speak for yourself, I'll speak for myself, and this conversation will go just fine.

In a sense I agree with the latter part of this statement. Accurate knowledge about God and the Bible is a personal responsibility - ultimately, but we are having a discussion here. You state your position and I state mine. Beyond that I don't expect you to be concerned about my opinions on the subject. But you, to a greater or lesser extent, like most posters here, seem pretty concerned with beliefs on God and religion.

 I'm answering your silly points.  I'm also concerned with good music, good food, and good lovin'.  When you want to demonstrate your depth of intellect by turning to other subjects, we can have those conversations. Buyt assuming I care about your god any more than the five minutes it takes to rebut your inane ramblings, well, you're lending yourself too much gravitas. Your god doesn't exist, and if you fell off the world tomorrow, I would not know nor care.

The point is, you most likely instilled in your young son some materialistic fantasy based upon mythology, customs and tradition that you knew wasn't true but presented as truth to your impressionable child in order to mislead, and control him and yet you have a big problem with anyone else incorporating these alleged tenets.

In that case you'd be wrong, because his mother was a Catholic. We both agreed to not engage in programming, but to not lie about our own beliefs, or lack thereof. I respect my own son's mind, have let him develop as himself because I'm not concerned with controlling his thoughts, and quite frankly, I think you're being a right cunt assuming horseshit like this about my family; this only reinforces my initial impression of you as a bullshitter who talks more than he knows.

As for what I "know" is or isn't true, you seem to have a lot of insight.  Why don't you continue with your speculations for my amusement?

Atheism is hypocritical, nonsensical, uninformed antiquated polemic pontification. Social and political frustration primarily expressed poorly by failed Christians with a Utopian quasi scientific ideology equally uninformed and hinged upon the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution. And you, I suspect, think that is original and clever. It isn't, so why not be more tolerant of other people's paradigm?

I'm tolerant of paradigms that don't infringe upon my way of life.  The problem with you Christians is that while you don't know how to shut the fuck up, you neither know how to use reason to make a point.   

I think you're lying about having been an atheist who has converted, because your insights are so pathetically banal. You are so gullible that you were "converted" by reading the Bible, a book with so many inaccuracies that you yourself have pointedly admitted that you don't regard it as entirely true, but yet you come here to espouse its "truth".  

Pardon me while I think that you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

---

I'm on my phone and looking up the reference is unwieldy so I'll get to it later tonight ... but I don't think you're correct about Jubilee liberation, Hash.

Thanks for the heads-up. It's in Leviticus chap. 25. I was correct and wrong both. Jubilee came every 50 years, not 7 like I thought. Although there was a 7 x 7 + 1 computation and the 7-year subdivisions may have been of importance, as "agricultural sabbaticals" of some sort. Israelites in servitude went free at the jubilee (Lev. 25:40), but foreigners did not. 50% isn't a bad score when I haven't read this stuff in a quarter century.  

Leviticus 25:44 -46:

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 

45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 
46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Clearly, the Jubilee was limited in scope, as foreigners and their children could be enslaved for life. Leviticus goes on to state that those slaves may buy their redemption, which is hardly liberation.