Exodus 12:43

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.

Exodus 21:20

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Exodus 21:32

If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

wait, you mean SLAVERY is ok with god ???

then howcome it is illegal in this god fearing nation based on good godly moral values ?

did jesus say anything to change gods view of slavery ?

if not where did all the antislavery venom COME from ?

edit: oh yeah, what is the point of getting a bull stoned, it makes him calmer or something ?

I guess they stone the bull to teach it a lesson. Or maybe that's just a ritual way to tenderize the meat before eating it :bigthumb: .

I couldn't imagine beating something to death....even an animal.
Guess when there were no guns you had to use a rock.

I need a tree to hug.....

Exodus 12:43

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.

Exodus 21:20

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Exodus 21:32

If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

It is the Law, for man. These laws do not assign value, only the "If you do such a thing, you shall do this thing as a result"

Do you think the slave owner shall not come under judgment from God for his actions?

It is the Law, for man. These laws do not assign value, only the "If you do such a thing, you shall do this thing as a result"

Do you think the slave owner shall not come under judgment from God for his actions?

No, because he is obeying the Law as set forth by God.

Though the South had the issue of their slaves not being of a neighboring land, they're straight fucked.

It is the Law, for man. These laws do not assign value, only the "If you do such a thing, you shall do this thing as a result"

Do you think the slave owner shall not come under judgment from God for his actions?

Jesus Looooves slaves! Below, Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner. Jesus was that cool!

Luke 7:2
Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

The creator of the universe states in writing that slavery is perfectly acceptable. Beating your slaves is fine. Enslaving children is fine. Separating slave families is fine. According to the Bible, we should all be practicing slavery today. Therefore, please fly that proud rebel flag and pick a strong hard working black man, or a Jew for that matter, because god knows it is the right thing to do.

I guess they stone the bull to teach it a lesson. Or maybe that's just a ritual way to tenderize the meat before eating it :bigthumb: .

+ eleventy seven

Proper meat tenderization is key!:bigthumb:

You, as a rational human being, (sometimes I wonder if that is a stretch), know that slavery is wrong. You know it! And I think it is true that every single developed nation in the world has made slavery completely illegal.

Think about this. Human beings made slavery illegal, in direct defiance of God's word, because we all know with complete certainty that slavery is wrong. If God actually had anything to do with the Bible, then the eleventh commandment would be, "Thou shalt not enslave."

What does your common sense now tell you about a Bible that supports slavery in both the Old and the New Testaments?

Given the fact that the Bible clearly condones slavery, does it make more sense for you to believe that God wrote the Bible, or that primitive men wrote the Bible without any input from God? Be honest with yourself.

Gods words below making a law for slaves and allowing mutilation. God kicks ass!

Exodus 21:1

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

Jesus Looooves slaves! Below, Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner. Jesus was that cool!

You seem very confused about exactly what the kingdom of heaven is.

Did you miss the part where it said "No slave or free?"

The Bible is some thick language, almost as bad as the Federalist Papers.

I Corinthians 7 suggests that a slave should not fight his servitude because all men will be equal in the eyes of God.

I don't see any denouncement of slavery.

like so many of his ilk, cz ignores the whole council of God and runs off on a tangent with an O.T. civil law specific to Israel

only the moral law endures! this argument is so played out!

...much like you ran off with an old testament statement made by a sinner to justify your act of praying for someone to die, even though Jesus contradicted this in the new testament, right??

The Bible is some thick language, almost as bad as the Federalist Papers.

I Corinthians 7 suggests that a slave should not fight his servitude because all men will be equal in the eyes of God.

I don't see any denouncement of slavery.

in this context, i think what other people don't see is that big man in the sky is less concerned with the comfort of the earthly experience, and is instead focused on the afterlife...

...which makes sense, because one lasts for a few decades while the other lasts forever.

I believe praying for the death of hardened enemies is just...otherwise David and others like him sinned, which cannot be the case in the Psalms

"pray for your enemies" is in the context of those not in a long alignment against the truth

Paul did not pray God's blessing for the blacksmith who harassed him, for example...he prayed God's judgment

1--no one on this forum is a "hardened enemy"....according to Jesus, someone who physically tries to take your life is to be met with better treatment than you give people here, over something as simple as a forum.....that is your first mistake on this issue. If someone is in alignment with you on the truth, they are NOT AN ENEMY. They will sin against you. They may argue against you. They may do a lot of things to you, but in the end, it is quite clear that those who are on the path with you are NOT CALLED ENEMIES, no matter what they do.

2--David certainly couldnt have sinned in Psalms, right?? Thats why Jesus said LOVE YOUR ENEMY later on? Tell me, what is your enemy? It certainly isnt another believer--that would in biblical terms be your BROTHER. The term enemy is someone you do not align yourself with--an outsider, perhaps. THAT is an enemy---and even if you consider people here to be that, Jesus was very clear on how you were to treat them.

Let's also not forget that David was a man, a sinner like any other, in fact a womanizer and adulterer! But NO, he COULDNT have sinned on this point, could he? Because if he did, that would mean you have to face YOUR OWN sin....and we cant have that, now can we???

:owned:

EDIT--and I can PROVE IT---what did Jesus say to God as He was dying? What did Jesus ask His father to do?

Forgive them, for they know not what they do

THIS was what Jesus said---He prayed for the people that just BETRAYED, TORTURED AND MURDERED HIM.....if that is not far enough away from this internet forum for you to wake the fuck up, nothing is.

read much?

Yes, actually. And that line doesn't support your case at all.

why do you say that?

You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

Because you are wrong, thats why he said that.....

Do not become slaves of men--or, perhaps, do not fall into the things of man, but be a slave for God instead of a slave for human thoughts......hmmm.....

how many cases of God specifically denouncing or acting against slavery are present in the bible??

In fact, didnt Abraham, one of the most worthy examples for God, have slaves?? God didnt punish him in any way for this, why? If God did not want man to have slaves, why did Abraham find such favor with God while he had slaves?

and again, I Corinthians 7 clearly states:

Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.

IF, yes, marky, it says IF. Does it say anything about how they all shoudl be freed? Does it say "woe to your enslavers"??? Does God say right there that slavery is wrong?

AGAIN, stop trying to side-step the point....Abraham, one of God's favorites of all time, had slaves, and the Bible itself says so. It also contains not one word from God to Abraham about having those slaves being a bad thing. Do you disagree??

again, Paul writing in the epistles, recognized the human institution of slavery had existed since ancient times, and therefore he is not looking to start a revolution...but clearly all men and women are created equal

Galatians 3

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise

right....back to abraham, who had slaves...and that point is one that you keep ignoring....hmmmm

read much?

read much?? Yeah, already read it, and not one word of what you posted twice there addresses what I said.

YOU point out that it is acknowledged that slavery existed....

I am asking why, if God didnt want slavery, why He never said or did anything about people having slaves?

There is a mountain of difference between those two points, and you are simply retarded for trying yet again to answer my question with a totally irrelevant post. Not one word of that answers what I asked you. I asked about Abraham, which lived during OT times, and you counter with Paul, from the NT??? And Paul is merely saying that he knew slavery existed! NOTHING MORE!

NOW, if you can dare to pay attention long enough to stay on topic, WHAT DID GOD SAY OR DO ABOUT ABRAHAM OWNING SLAVES?? Was there ANY MENTION of any punishment, scolding, admonishment? ANYTHING? Is there ANY example you can bring up in the Bible that specifically shows God admonishing someone specifically for owning a slave? Not how they treated a slave, but simply owning one??

DO NOT STRAY FROM THE POINT WITH YOUR USUAL TACTIC OF DIVERSION--STICK TO THE POINT AT HAND. You are the one who made the assertion that God didnt want slavery to exist--SHOW ME WHERE IT IS FOUND IN THE WORD.

I believe God recognized slavery would always exist in a fallen world

it won't exist in the Kingdom

what--no words from God?? No scriptures to back this up?? No verses showing your point??

didnt think so....

here's another hint--ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL, and this is using YOUR own words...

Didnt you previously agree that God created some men, knowing that they would go to heaven, and He created others not to? IS THAT EQUAL? Free will cannot in any way, shape, or form exist if the future was determined before we were born. So, if God made marky, and God knew before marky drew his first breath that marky was not going to reach heaven, NOTHING MARKY COULD DO WOULD MAKE HIM EQUAL TO SOMEONE WHO IS IN THE KINGDOM IN GOD'S EYES

EDIT--adultery wont exist in the kingdom, either, yet David, who was an adulterer, still had to atone for his actions, and found heaven, didnt he? The difference is that God clearly says that adultery is wrong, while you still cannot produce one scripture that shows God telling Abraham to repent for his slaves! I think this effectively kills your assertions about slavery and the bible, thanks for failing

again, these threads get so derailed by your psychotic gyrations/perverse ranting we have to get back to my original statement, above


um, genius--EVERYTHING was God's design. NOTHING would exist without Him creating it. Good, bad, slavery, freedom, up, down, in, out, NONE of it would exist unless God created it. This is a point you constantly choke on. The creator of all things, until you find something you want to blame on someone else...

sin is not God's nature, although it is allowed, for a time

there are many things wrong and less than perfect in a fallen world, many injustices, many evils, and far more human constructs that do not represent God

--but which were all created by god to serve a purpose. Again, you cannot get around that no matter how many times you try to talk flowery to get around it. Stop sidestepping the point and address it already

just as I suspected. You dont have an answer. thought so

slavery was allowed, but it was never God's design



Yes as I have said before. Man is a work in progress.

Yes as I have said before. Man is a work in progress.

yes, but man is GOD'S work in progress. God created the human mind. God created the human abilities, like the way humans have adapted their surroundings to fit their needs. God created human nature. And whether you like to hear it or not, human nature cannot be prone to something if that something was not created first! God created everything--you cannot be truthful on this unless you admit that both good and bad things fall into that category. We are the way God made us.

Remember the tree of knowledge? That knowledge, of good and evil, existed BEFORE eve took the fruit of the tree and took a bite--God even says this much. When God told Adam and Eve not to eat of that one tree, that knowledge was already created and in place....humans just did not have it yet. BUT GOD ALREADY HAD CREATED IT. To overlook this is to be dishonest about creation.

Now, I am not saying that God wants everyone to sin. But I AM saying that without God creating that knowledge, there would have been no danger for Eve eating from that tree, would there? Whether you like it or not, that was a creation of God, and it was created to serve a purpose.

your philosophy is dangerous

Romans 3

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

um, wrong

that philosophy, as I mentioned, comes straight out of the bible:

Follow along with me in Genesis 2....

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

This is the very first time that the word 'evil' appears in the bible. This is BEFORE they ate of the tree, and here is God saying that this evil already exists. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, that is proper. That is straight from the Word, marky....its that simple. And, if the Word is 100% truth, that means that this evil 100% positively existed BEFORE man first disobeyed God. For you or anyone else to say that God didnt create sin is simply false, even according to the bible.

NOW--God created that evil, and the tree bore the knowledge of it. Then God created Adam and Eve, while knowing that they would be curious and eat of that tree. That doesnt make it God's fault everytime someone sins, but face facts--that is what we were designed to do. God made that evil--tell me I'm wrong....

the passage from Romans is wrong?

no, marky, your claim that my "philosophy" is so far off is whats wrong--and I backed that up with scripture. What part of english are you having trouble with??

Do you now claim that the passage from Genesis was misquoted in my post? Or do you agree that it was quoted correctly? That's the real question--no matter what you wish to say about my "philosophy", that passage is where it comes from. Tell the truth, now....

EDIT--once again, you are off track....the verse in Romans does not in any way address what I said about the passage in Genesis. I am referring to the origin of the evil--who created it--and you are talking about something else entirely.

Seems to me that this is a case of the development of the human condition. During Biblical times slavery was the norm and even though I’m sure it was not a desired standard of living, probably was not viewed as something immoral.

Consider something that was present in society thousands of years ago, is acceptable in society today but could be viewed as immoral in the not too distant future. Something like male circumcision. Most people in the western world don’t have an issue with it and so it is not used as an argument against the Bible. However, in 50 years this may change and people may use the fact that circumcision is not condemned in the Bible as a means to discredit it.

Guess the Bible is guilty of not keeping up with the times.

Oh yeah, this might be a stretch but couldn’t one interpret Moses freeing his people from slavery as God’s stance against it?

I'm really surprised the letter to Philemon never came up in this discussion.

there can be only one soverign, everybody else is a subject to the authority of the boss.

everybody is the slave of the boss, for the law to denounce slavery would be to glorify the subjects into worthy beings in their own right.

which would undermine the authority of the superior soverign king, of kings.

I believe praying for the death of hardened enemies is just...otherwise David and others like him sinned, which cannot be the case in the Psalms

"pray for your enemies" is in the context of those not in a long alignment against the truth

Paul did not pray God's blessing for the blacksmith who harassed him, for example...he prayed God's judgment
I liked this reply.
Paul is frustrated to not see the good days come to past. He thinks he should destroy anything that causes friction to God's goal. he doesn't know what gods judgment will be. But if his suspicions are correct, his god is going to kick some ass.

God's judgment that very day was 'no' to Paul.

Because nothing was done, you can also argue that meant there isn't a god.

The lake of fire is the second death?
see? I will die for good finally.

Paul did not pray God's blessing for the blacksmith who harassed him, for example...he prayed God's judgment

again, let's weigh this one a bit....

You claim that it is ok to pray for people to die. As evidence, you produce two examples of men, sinners, making such statements.

I countered your claim, and as evidence, I produce Jesus, the only one ever without sin, telling you that you are not to pray for death to come to others, even your enemies.

Of the three examples listed, which one SHOULD you be placing more faith in? Which one is SUPPOSED TO carry more weight? The bible is chock full of things that people said, and that people did.....including a whole ton of sins. Yet not one thing Jesus ever did was wrong, and not one thing He ever said was wrong. That point is totally lost on you because you are only interested in being a prick and thinking you're allowed to be. Of the three, the one that should carry the most weight for a christian is the one that came from the only way to get to the Father....

"No one comes to the Father except through me...."

So, I ask you yet again, marky, when men sin, and Jesus doesnt, why do you constantly choose to ignore what Jesus tells you in favor of what a man says?

Oh yeah, this might be a stretch but couldn’t one interpret Moses freeing his people from slavery as God’s stance against it?

no, "let my people go."

god recognised pharoahs right to keep the jews as his lawful slaves, the point of the plagues was to convince pharoah to willingly give up his lawful property, the jews.

so that whole bit reinforces the rightness of even pagan sinners to own even the chosen people of god.

Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellow laborer, And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in thy house: Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints; That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus. For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother. Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such a one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:

But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him forever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account; I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord. Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say. But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you. There salute thee Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus; Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

1--At this point, wasnt Paul imprisoned? He was in jail, not a slave, is that correct?

2--While paul was in jail, he had this son, is that correct? This means that the son was not a slave either--he was clearly not even a prisoner, since he was being sent by Paul....this clearly shows that this letter is not referring to 'slave' in the same sense. The bible often uses 'slave' in a different context--such as men being slaves to sin. This has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of slavery as talked about in this thread.

Look at the word 'slave' in the bible. In many cases, the term is not used literally to mean a slave as in this thread. Of course, it is also used many times to mean this.....which brings me to the final word in your claim that God hated slavery:

Mind you, this is God speaking to Moses--

EXODUS 21:20-21

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Earlier in the same chapter:

2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Here, we see God setting forth the rules that He accepts, which will govern the concept of slavery. He clearly states that a slave is the rightful property of the master. He goes into great detail about precisely how one should go through the process of buying, selling, or keeping their servants. This is GOD speaking.....so how do you read that and come away with the idea that God hated slavery?? GOD ALLOWED IT, and clearly had no problem with it as long as it was done by His rules! God even stated there that it is perfectly acceptable for a man to beat his slave as long as the slave was not seriously hurt in the process!!

Does THAT sound like "all are created equal"? Sorry, but no way

Does THAT sound like "all are created equal"? Sorry, but no way
That is a sound argument, Sky.

God recognized a hierarchy if we count in god himself. Are you going to take god's job? I don't think so. We are all below him. God uses us, does what ever the fuck he wants with us. We are indeed slaves.

God may recognize slaves are needed in a society and this was a recipe of what to do with people to excel human growth.

We can not possibly know if we are screwing ourselves running a country without slaves. But so far it's working.

correct



the term "son" is used in a spiritual context here, Paul led him to the Lord

Onesimus was likely a runaway slave, who still owed Philemon a debt of service and/or money

wrong again---there is no reference any other time to 'son' in spiritual terms for the situation you described. Now, instead of son, the term brother is used, and was used then as well. To use 'son' implies a relationship that is not equal, which is contradicting what you have said already. As far as I recall, and admittedly I could be mistaken, but there is no such reference found anywhere else in the bible.

As for your "likely", you really need to give it a rest. Remember, this took place while Paul was in prison, so the most likely event was that Onesimus was also in prison. You cannot go around adding your own falsified information as you wish just to try and support your case. It just doesnt work that way.

yep...and that's what I've said all along

you don't read what I post, you read what you want to read, which is why debating you is incredibly frustrating

Wrong yet again....let's examine exactly what you said, and compare it to the information found in the bible:

THIS is what you said originally--

slavery was allowed, but it was never God's design

Compare that to what I just posted about God instructing Moses--the laws Gos listed are EXACTLY God's DESIGN. God instructed Moses precisely how, ACCORDING TO GOD'S DESIGN, everything was supposed to be. GOD designed the concept of slavery as He allowed it. GOD and GOD ALONE designed the limits, rules, and so on that He intended to govern slavery on earth. GOD decided that a slave was perfectly allowed as someone's property--that is NOT the same as "I dont like it, and I didnt intend it, but I will allow it"....God clearly came up with the concept as described in that scripture. This is so plainly obvious--again, it wasnt "I dont like this, but it will od for now"....it was "since the slave is his property".....

This is why you fail--not because I didnt read your post, but because you failed to account for exactly what the bible really says and what it means. God did not one single time say that He didnt like slavery, hated it, wished it didnt happen, or anything else of the sort. Instead, He clearly says "slaves are the rightful property of their master". He further says that a man is well within his right, and within God's law, to beat said slaves, as long as he doesnt beat them too badly. NOTHING there says anything to support your claim that "it wasnt God's design"--actually, the bible plainly says quite the opposite.

mark, seriously, it is time for you to stop ad-libbing the bible. What it says is what it says, and no amount of you wrongfully adding this or that to try to support your unfounded claim is what God intended. Read it for what it is, post the actual words, all good, but when you go off adding anything you see fit that is completely unsubstantiated by the actual text, you are going further than you have a right to.

Paul, in his great humility as an apostle of God, considered himself a "bondslave" of Christ, the lowest of the low

his attitude was the correct one: he deserved absolutely nothing from God, he has happy to even be accepted into the kingdom as a slave

considering your frequent statements that you are one of the chosen few, shouldnt your attitude mirror that, rather than the bragging and boasting you do about your perceived salvation? If you look at each and every person that God favored, as depicted in the Bible, they share some qualities--humility being at the top of the list. Shouldnt that be your target too? Note that Paul possessed that humility regardless of what someone said about him or what he thought of the person....you possess not a shred of humility that anyone can see. Why is that?

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

yes, but again, this was not referring to 'slave' as in slavery here on earth to other men. "You are no longer a slave" refers to the relationship between the person and God. This has already been addressed. This is saying that, because God has chosen the person, he is no longer a slave to sin, but a son, one of the chosen....and now, also an heir to the kingdom of Heaven, instead of the lake of fire, where the "slaves to sin" will spend eternity. This has absolutely nothing to do with man owning man as a slave, which is the topic of this thread. Great passage, though.

the natural man, the carnal man, CANNOT respond to God in this way, he can only rebel and curse God...just as you are doing

honestly, is your action any better?? It is clear in the bible that God will act far more harshly against one who knows the truth and continues to sin, than He will against one who doesnt know the truth. Who in here, myself included, can honestly truthfully say that they act any better than that?

You say that he rebels and curses God--but you rebel and curse, and you claim to do it in God's name. That is no better in God's eyes that anything that anyone else here does. Seriously, we all are in the same boat as far as sin goes, so please, give it a rest with all this self-righteous garbage. You have already been caught claiming that you sin less(and that your sins are not as bad) as others....how much more self-righteous behavior will it take before you realize that the bible is against you on that?

it simply means Paul was his father in the faith, the same phrase is used many times in the epistles

the exact same usage in the catholic church is rejected by "real" christians every day, because there is no father in the faith except for the Father. So, how can you use that argument now to support your claim? For all you know, "son" could very well mean that he looked upon the guy as a son. Remember, Paul was an old man by then....you are merely grasping at straws and then trying to use arguments that you yourself have previously voided in the past as proof...you need to do better than that.

No matter where you look--for example, Paul himself refers to people each and every time as "brothers". how many letters did he write to churches and call everyone there his sons? Go read 1 Corinthians sometime--how many times does Pau say "brothers"? how many times does he call them "sons"?? There is not one example of "sons" being used in there for such a purpose--and that was Paul speaking to the church in Corinth, was it not? These were people whom Paul had taught, no? In fact, the relationship is quite clear in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4----

1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

Was Paul not also more spiritual than these people? Did he not teach them just as he did to this one man? Here he is, even saying that they are mere infants in Christ--yet he doesnt use "sons" there??? Why not? If the word meant what you claim it did, clearly it would belong in this passage.

go ahead, tell me about how all the bible scholars disagree--when even Paul's own words in this situation back me up...

I noticed that you refused to reply to the rest of my post....it was kept polite intentionally for a reason, mark. You will note that I also took responsibility for myself at the same time--why cant you?

speaking of Paul....1 Corinthians 2....

1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

lesson there, I think....

I Coritnthians 4 (KJV)

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me



really?

yes, really....like I said, go count up all the times in that book that Paul calls them sons....and then count up all the times that he says "brothers"....my point is quite clearly made using nothing more than Paul's own choice of words, not my own. So yes, you lose. Even your own posted verse aboe clearly says "you have not many fathers", and when you combine that with Paul's incredible sense of humility, it is quite apparent that you are wrong. Then again, nothing more is needed than to look at what word Paul himself chooses....over, and over, and over again...compared to the word he doesnt ever use....

"It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

"The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?" -- St. Augustine

"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Replace "memory" (because you have none) with "ICR", and I think we've got a perfect description of you, Mark.

Did Saint Augustine know you personally? :roll:

I understand the Bible better than you :)

a true statement.

you understand nothing better than him, the bible IS nothing, so you understand the Bible better than him.

I understand the Bible better than you.Not if you think it contains literal history and is 100% factual...

Not if you think it contains literal history and is 100% factual...

You mean it's not??? ZOMG, Oh Teh Noes!!!!

life is short, jimmyTrue, but that doesn't make the Bible any more credible.

If the Bible were factual, and there is a God and he has heaven set aside for the faithful, why aren't Christians dropping like flies to get there? Why hang on to an earthly existence that, in your opinion, is meaningless? I mean, I understand the Muslim extremist viewpoint that you should take as many infidels with you as you can before you go to hang out with Allah... but seriously, if heavenly rewards truly await you and you're 100% convinced of that, then why are you still alive?

Life is short. Please make yours shorter as a favor to the rest of us.

LOL

same old jonnie: soundly defeated, without question, absolute undeniable proof, and he'll keep on denying it until the opposing party gets tired of arguing, so he can proclaim "I win"

"brother" and "son" are used interchangeably in the spiritual context by Paul and Christ himself...the bottom line is, it DOES NOT refer in Philemon to a physical son, NO WAY, NO HOW

YOU lose...as always

you didnt defeat a damn thing....

1--show me where I EVER said that this was a physical son....what I REALLY said was this, you idiot:

For all you know, "son" could very well mean that he looked upon the guy as a son.

Reading owns you again, stoopid.....

2--interchangeably?? REALLY?? Show me how many times Jesus refers to himself as the "BROTHER of God".....WAY WRONG ANSWER, marky mark....

Additionally, show me how many times Paul ever even says the word son in this context. IF YOU DID THESE THINGS, you would see sound defeat on your part, because the FACT stands as I posted it. Paul uses "brother" in 1 Corinthians no less than THIRTY FOUR TIMES.....at the same time, he uses "son" precisely THREE TIMES....two of the times he clearly is referring to Jesus with the term, the third time he refers to Timothy, "whom I love"...clearly he thinks very highly of Timothy, and not just in the faith, and probably looks upon him as a son too....if this term was so interchangeable as you claim, it would no doubt be used far more than one or two times, liar. Its that simple.

How does 2 Corinthians start out???

1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

In 2 Corinthians, Paul continues on the same exact pattern of the words NOT being interchangeable--he uses "son" only ONCE, and again, clearly he is talking about Jesus when he does it. But "brother" appears precisely thirteen times...and not one of those is in reference to a biological brother. Then he carries on the same exact pattern in Galatians--brother is used 12 times. Interchangeable??? Then why is this so obviously lopsided?? Why does he use "son" only in two specific cases other than referring to Jesus, but even when there are others that he brought into the faith, they are "brothers" to him instead?? SIMPLE--because they are NOT interchangeable. In Ephesians, son appears twice, and clearly again, neither time is in the context you claim, instead one refers to Jesus and the other refers to the faithful being God's sons theough Jesus Christ. AGAIN YOU FAIL. And again, the bible is where this information comes from, not from me.

On to Philippians....which Paul also wrote. Brother is used 8 times, son is used ONCE....and in fact, let's examine how he uses it....

Philippians 2:22
But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.

Paul clearly shows that he perceives Timothy to be like a son to him. Which is EXACTLY what I said to you. Wrong again, marky....wrong again....

NEXT STOP, COLOSSIANS.....also written by Paul....son is used only once, and again refers to Jesus. Brother, however, is used five times, and all in the same context I have maintained this whole time.

NEXT....1 and 2 Thessalonians....brother is mentioned 19 times in 1, and 8 times in 2....all in the same context....son is mentioned twice in 1 and not mentioned at all in 2....and again, not at all in the context you claim.

We could do this all day long, marky, or you could just learn some of that humility that you need to find anyways to reach heaven, and admit your error yourself. The choice is yours, but the bible clearly doesnt follow your claim, and it clearly does illustrate mine.

:owned:






So much for you proving anything, as usual. why did I keep going?? Because the bible itself proves you dead wrong. Hell, you cant even tell me what my claim was!! You are still insisting that I claimed this was a biological son! Even though I clearly stated otherwise several posts ago.....yep, youre just that ignorant. Again, reading owns you....how does it feel to be so educated and so ignorant at the same time?

it's not meaningless, the purpose of life is to learn perseverance, and to depend on God...life is ultimately finding out where you end and God begins; some only figure that out in death or serious illness

if you can trust God now, how much more when you see Him?

think about that for a minute....you are supposed to learn perseverance here, yet you cant even handle being on an internet forum without going off the deep end daily?!?

What does that say about your level of perseverance, that perfect strangers can entice you into such ridiculous actions just by typing words on a computer?? If youre supposed to learn perseverance here, what is your excuse for not having any?

At the same time, if you cannot trust God to know what is right and good in the face of a stranger calling you an idiot online, how can you possibly expect to trust Him with something that actually matters??

you are a fraud, mark...pure and simple...

schooling the ignorant...again (do I get paid for this painful exercise?)

Matthew 12

While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

WOW, you are a complete jackass!!

Tell me something--you claim that brother and son are used interchangeably, right??

SO WHY THEN, in your incredibly patehtic manner, would you think that this constitutes proof of that?? You post "proof" that doesnt even mention the word son at all?!?

In addition, you CANNOT use the perspective of God or Jesus as an equal to that of Paul in any sense--we are all sons of God, but not sons of paul.....your failure is complete now. Jesus said "my brothers are those who follow the will of my father"....and suddenly that means to you that brother and son are the same thing?? Nevermind that PAUL'S WORDS AND PERCEPTION are the issue here--you just go right on ahead with this ridiculous logic--you just got owned at your own game. At least be man enough to admit it already.

Wrong on two counts, and yet you call it proof??? The only thing that verse just proved is that you are a complete imbecile that cant win by playing straight, so you have to change the focus or the rules whenever you see fit to suit your argument, all because you are too much of a pussy to admit your errors.

here's exactly what you said, p. 5

wow, hey dipshit--do you know how to read?? Apparently not....let's consider the facts:

1---Paul never married. This is common knowledge.

2---Paul was in prison. Do you actually think that I was under the impression he was allowed conjugal visits or something???

All I said was "while Paul was imprisoned, he had this son." That does not mean that I think he fathered a son you dipshit....it means while he was there, he had this guy that he thought of as a son. THAT IS IT. Reading any more into it is your fuckup, not mine.

then you stated this, to seal your ignorance

Ignorance?? The only ignorance on this comes from you....look at the examples from the bible--not even from my words--there quite simply is no reference anywhere in Paul's writings whatsoever that matches your claim! NOT ONE. I just showed you precisely how many times Paul even uses the two words, and the context in which they appear. THIS IS PAUL'S OWN INTENT WE ARE SEEING HERE, NOT MINE. All I did was use the EXACT words as found in the bible. If you dont like those words, take it up with the one who wrote them--NOT ME. Your argument was just proven false using only the words of the Bible, as they were written, in the context they were written in....without me changing one damn thing. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY OF THESE WORDS, and even if you did, they arent my words--they're PAUL'S!

Since none of this is sinking in to your skull, I leave it at that. The bible stands alone, you say, as the one truth...well, I just showed you that truth, and all you can do, instead of admit your fuckup, is whine on and on about how you THOUGHT you were schooling someone. You lost, dumbass. Deal with it. And like I said, if you still dont like it, go complain to Paul--after all, HIS words and perception were all I documented up there....:owned:

But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

I'll even do you one better--why doesnt Jesus say "son" or "father" there?? BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE FATHER.....and he clearly knows it. If there is only one father spiritually speaking, and it is God(and not Paul), then PAUL IS NOT ANYONE'S SPIRITUAL FATHER you jackass. There--not only were you proven wrong with the bible--but with your own "proof" as well. Run along now, and see what other windmills you can tilt at today....

blah blah

you're a babbling idiot to be condemned, I don't even consider you human anymore

typical--you just got your ass handed to you, and since you are far too prideful and arrogant to own up to that, this is all you can reply with....:bigthumb:

blah blah

profane babble in all caps

you lost, dumbass--either admit it or seek life elsewhere. The bible, after all, doesnt lie....but you clearly do.

Isn't there a rabid Christian forum somewhere out there that we could sell Mark to?

Isn't there a rabid Christian forum somewhere out there that we could sell Mark to?

could you imagine being an admin on such a site?? :bigthumb:

The only thing that is even sadder than marky's existence is the fact that somewhere out there, there are bound to be some others as pathetic as he is.

So is that a 'yes'? Most everyone here agrees that God love slavery?

So is that a 'yes'? Most everyone here agrees that God love slavery?

I dont know if I can say God loves it, but the bible is clear that God didnt make any effort to stop it, and in fact approved of it as long as it was done his way....

Isn't there a rabid Christian forum somewhere out there that we could sell Mark to?

biblocality.com


. . they would not let me join :P

I wanted to ask a lot of questions.

I tend to agree

of course, thats all you got, dumbass....changing statements because you are too much of a little bitch to admit when you get your nuts handed to you in a plastic bag. you LOST, dipshit....I didnt make those words up. Face facts already--be a man for once. I know, I know, youre a sperm-overdosed midget who drives a pink car, but at least try to act like a man for just long enough to admit you fucked up....

YOU LOST. DEAL WITH IT. No amount of changing my quotes will make you into more of a man, nor will it make your fuckup any closer to being correct. GROW UP you fucking retard

um, no, psycho jonnie, you clearly lost the debate, as you always do when you try to challenge me

just run along, go polish the rims on your thunderbird or whatever you do, lol

yeah, marky....the bible clearly doesnt agree with you...but go on, tell yourself that you didnt lose this one. Who knows?? maybe if you say it enough, you might actually make it happen, just like you think you can with your imaginary girlfriend!!!!

be a man, marky....not a moron. even the things you posted proved you wrong.....

you lost...run along....fix up some spam soup

Paul thinks youre a retard and an asshole for not even being able to read what he wrote without trying to change it.

you are teh fail, dipshit....better luck next time

god clearly approves of the institution of slavery.

just as god clearly approves of eternal punishment.

the eternal punishment will continue during the perfection of humanity, as a PART of the perfect humanity, the perfect part in heaven and the punished part in hell.

both parts equally perfect, one part being perfectly punished and the other part being perfectly rewarded.

the fact that the eternally punished part of humanity is submitting to the punishment against their will shows that involuntary servitude will exist in the "perfection" of humanity, which shows how highly god prizes slavery.

again, God allowed it, just as God allowed polygamy in O.T. times, but it was never God's design from the beginning

this is where you are wrong again....

God NEVER set forth rules to Moses or anyone else about how polygamy should be done. Not once. Not ever. Never. On the other hand, God designed a particular plan--a format, if you will, for how people should own and treat slaves. God DESIGNED that set of rules. And I already posted the scripture that proves it.

you lose. again. business as usual.

again, slavery was already part of the culture at that time (the time the Law was given), God did not "design" slavery

you're clueless, as usual

God DID, however, design a plan and a set of rules for slavery to make them perfectly acceptable in His eyes....you tried in vain to equate that with polygamy--tell me, where did God ever set up rules to make polygamy work within His law???

Like I said, you fail. God NEVER approved of polygamy in any form, yet He went to the trouble of setting up a format for salvery so that it conformed to his rules. People who had slaves, as long as they treated them according to God's law, were not once ever rebuked, chastized, or punished for it--which clearly shows that God did not ever consider that to be wrong. NO ONE was made to ask forgiveness for having slaves according to the rules God set. But EVERYONE who ever engaged in polygamy was guilty of a sin by doing so.

You are so far off it isnt even funny

here we go, I have to educate/humble your worthless mind, once again

Deuteronomy 21

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

“If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."

:owned:

owned??? NOT A CHANCE...because marrying more than one woman was ALWAYS a sin. you yourself have used scripture to uphold that marriage was a sacred bond form God and that the only reason God allows it to be broken is for adultery. HEY DUMBASS--if youre married, and you marry another and sleep with her, or sleep with another outside of marriage, THAT IS ADULTERY.

AGAIN, by contrast, owning slaves was NEVER punished as a sin was, so long as the master followed God's set of rules! The passage you posted concerns how the man needs to take care of his CHILDREN, because even with the sin of adultery, he still needs to care for them properly! YOU LOSE, retard....

tell you what...let's take a good solid look at how incredibly wrong you really are....

Deuteronomy 17:17

17And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

Leviticus 18:18

18And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

Malachi 2:15

15Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?[a] And what was the one God[b] seeking?[c] Godly offspring. So guard yourselves[d] in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.

Mark 10:1-12

1And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them.


2And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." 5And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,[a] 8and they shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."


10And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

So, tell me again, what does God say in the bible about allowing more than one wife, you idiot??? CLEARLY, it was not ever in the same light as slavery....the passage you posted tells the man, "look, you fucked up and married two women, but even though that was wrong, you still must take care of the children from those wives...."

can I get a :owned:

thanks for playing

backing up my point, multiple wives were allowed

NO, THEY WERENT.

The passage you just mentioned details how Moses allowed DIVORCE, NOT POLYGAMY.

DIVORCE--when you divorce a spouse, you dissolve the marriage

POLYGAMY--you remain married to the wife, yet marry others at the same time

Are you THAT retarded that you cannot see the difference between Moses allowing divorce and marrying several women at once??

and what did Jesus say there??

And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment"

Because of the hardened hearts, MOSES did this NOT GOD.

you lose twice

let's hear that again

already answered and already handled. If you wanna keep repeating false interpretations, by all means, go for it.

no, you idiot, Moses was God's vessel to disseminate the law, He was speaking to the the Pharisees in language they could understand

the same mindless people say that Paul did not speak for God when he wrote "I write this, not the Lord" (paraphrase)

wrong again--you have no excuse here. Moses specifically granted DIVORCES, which mean the marriage was dissolved. You are here trying to say that the divorce is the same as polygamy, which it clearly is not. In a divorce, the marriage is dissolved, and you are no longer husband and wife....in polygamy, you are still husband and wife, you just marry other wives as well, while keeping your first wife.

BIG DIFFERENCE. you are dead wrong. Get used to disappointment, marky...

no, you idiot, Moses was God's vessel...Moses was a vessel, all right, but what was he full of?

That's right! Horseshit!

actually, it is the same in the eyes of God

if a man divorces his wife for a cause other than infidelity and takes another wife, he is in effect a polygamist, that is what Christ was driving at...and He clearly states God allowed it because of their hard hearts, although it was not God's design from the beginning



lol

it's like an ant challenging an M1 tank, it really is...I'm so far over your head

actually, no it isnt. Because a divorce is perfectly allowable and acceptable in case of adultery. Polygamy isnt acceptable in any case. Again, you lose. Chew on that, mow-ron

We are also talking about two very different actions on the part of man....a polygamist marries multiple women either because he doesnt care, or because he thinks its right. But a guy who gets a divorce has no intention of being married to several people at once.

By the way, let's review....you claim that polygamy was allowed by God, yet God hates it clearly, and offers not one situation in His law where it is justified. Then you claim that divorce is the same thing in God's eyes....but God allows divorce according to his law without punishment for the man if he divorces an adulterous wife. There are two very different sets of circumstances, and the two are even addressed and handled very differently by God....so there goes your theory, chief. Just like your other "interchangeable" theory of late, this one has gone down the shitter.

Good day.

it's like an ant challenging an M1 tank, it really is...I'm so far over your headThere's nothing quite as entertaining as watching someone letting their unfettered delusions of grandeur run wild... :bigthumb:

and I already proved to you it was allowed, you simply ignored what I postedNo, he's right. You didn't prove shit.

Even your own web site says you didn't prove shit. :bigthumb:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4074.asp

I didn't use AIG to prove my pointWhy, because they didn't support your point? So now you have selective adoption of AiG articles as "proof"?

I see. So if what they have to say ties into your beliefs, then they're the experts, and if you don't agree, they're full of shit?!?

http://www.theforumlounge.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1964&stc=1&d=1170261031