It seems as though you are wasting time right now. Might as well waste some more to prove that what you said is actually in the bible. That God is pro slavery and that God says that women are less superior to men.

I honestly think you believe in things that others have told you without actually going to the source to find them yourself. And when you are asked to show the proof. You make up an exuse that its a waste of time. Why did you even post a comment?

Put up or shut up is what I have to say to you. I am not going to prove you are wrong even though I know you are. So you will have to prove that you are right. Even though you are not. Maybe that is why you don't want to try.

I suspect that you are afraid of what you will find or maybe what you will not find. Either way I think you should investigate and research the subject a little deeper before you actually spout off. Make sure you are reading in context and that it actually says what you are reading.

Most people who read the bible dont realize that the english words come from greek or hebrew and aramaic words. Some words translitterate over and translate very well and some of the original words meanings are not undertood. Words unfortunatley change meaning due to man, over time.

Usually in a negative way. But either way, I doubt you will find anything that supports your comments. If you do I would like to see it though. Others might actually like to see it also.

Just think! if you are right, you will provide great fuel for the other un-believers to use. So think of it as doing something for "the cause". Just trying to motivate you.

Pletho

O Rly?

If motive isn't an element in murder then why are there different degrees?

motive =/ intent

From wiki:

Basic elements
In common law jurisdictions, murder has two elements or parts:

the act (actus reus) of killing a person
the state of mind (mens rea) of intentional, purposeful, malicious, premeditated, and/or wanton. [B](Here it is the MOTIVE
While murder is often expressed as the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", this element of malice may not be required in every jurisdiction (for example, see the French definition of murder below).

The element of malice aforethought can be satisfied by an intentional killing, which is considered express malice.
Malice can also be implied: deaths that occur by any recklessness or during certain serious crimes are considered to be implied malice murders.

Of course. You know I can find many versus supporting what I said so you're already pulling the context/translation card.

I'm not going to waste my time posting versus that you're going to try and refute simply by claiming that I'm not reading them in the right context.

Play your ****** up semantic word games.

You just lost the round. End of story.

I admit I overreached. Motive can be relevant to some crimes, but it's rare. Hate crimes would probably be a good example. But generally, motive is not an element in crimes. It's something that is proven to convince jurors, but it's not necessary.

Lol. Ok.

Do you still think witness testimony is credible compared to, say, DNA evidence? I just can't believe that anyone with any criminal court legal experience would say this.

Blah Blah Blah! You are wrong and can't prove you are right. You will find any excuse to get out of this one. You dont believe in reading in context or that the bible was translated from other words? Give us a break!

It is a context and translation are valid points but most likely will not come into play because I doubt you will find anything that resembles your comments.

Again put up or shut up, I say that in the most loving Christian tone I can, Sorry you can't here me.

I could actually say things that I am not willing to prove and research if I wanted but I endeavor not to and if I am found mistaken will gladly reword and research to make sure that I am right. If I am wrong I will apologize for it.

Thats integrity and honesty. What about you? How should we take any thing you say as credible with the knowledge that you simply won't even prove with research and present your findings for all to see? If you accuse or make comments about falsely about God or His Word you need to back it up sir with some credible information other than your opinion.

Pletho

You've got to stop muddying the waters.

We're talking about a biblical era that was 2000 years before DNA.

JustinA just injected the DNA question out of curiosity and I answered it. I don't take any one evidence out of context. I want to see everything that's available together because how they relate is really important.

You could have a case of someone who hit another person. If he did it with intent then its assault. If he was having an epileptic seizure when he did it it was an accident.

NO

mens rea is about whether you meant to do it or not

motive is about WHY you did something

you are ******ed. just because you swept the floor of a prosecutor's office doesnt mean you know anything.

Thanks for making my day a little lighter....rofl....

You don't need to compare it to anything - even non-relatively speaking, witness testimony is not reliable. Why won't you admit this?

cause thats all he has.

edit: theres no proof the statements in the bible are true, so it comes down to whether or not you believe the people who wrote down what happened. given that there is no other reason to believe, it makes sense splendour would think it is considerably more worthwhile than it is.

a better question to ask is why the authors who were eyewitnesses to Jesus are correct, and the eye witnesses to every other religion are somehow mistaken

What eye witness in other religions are you talking about?

Pletho,

You're late to the party it seems. Most all the reg theists on this board are busy convincing us slavery wasn't the bad type of slavery that we currently think of. (lol)

Which means they've admitted the Bible does in fact support slavery.

One popular argument is that if a man back then didn't sell himself into slavery he would - without question - starve to death. This of course doesn't even mention the slaves that didn't sell themselves willingly into slavery, nor the ones born into it.

This doesn't cover the women side of what I said, but that one is even more obvious. (if that's possible lol)

Does False Equivocation mean anything to you?

Butcho, If this is something you are really curious about why not allow another opinion from Pletho? I read every post of his I can because translation and context appear to be something he is great at. I agree with his saying that people believe what they have heard without going to the source to find the answers. And yes, the Bible can be difficult to read in context at times if you don't exactly understand what you're reading.

Why not give it a shot? Find a passage that doesn't seem to fit well with you and let Pletho give you his understanding of the context. And then you can use your own judgement to evaluate whether or not you agree with his reasoning. You may be surprised with what you never knew. I only say this because I know the Bible is correct.

I note that Jibninjas just plain stopped replying to the slavery thread.

I wouldn't read too much into that. I think he's busy with Jib Poker plus the atheists pretty much swarm the theists. If the thread gets too long and too many people come in with tangents it usually derails the thread or the point gets lost. They should have a cap on the number of posts in a thread. People can always have a part 2 or part 3 thread if they want to continue.

That would just cause confusion. Though it does bug me when there's been like 12 back-and-forths between 2 posters and a bunch of people hop on one specific response. Done it myself the odd time but best to wait for the other party's response and see if that addresses it IMO.

I often lose track of points when I try to keep up with too many threads and there are a lot of interjections. Brain overload and losing my train of thought not to mention some people seem to communicate in their own shorthand and expect to be understood. There are certain posters like luckyme or vhawk01 who do that. I almost never pick up on their point because its just not lucid for me. You can't respond to something you're left saying "Huh?" too....lol.

I think you may be onto something.

the authors of nonchristian holy books?