Christianity is Poison

[Sled]

All the comments very confusing all you are not believing to god
 has been already forgive if you are a good man.

All those believe god but not a good man is not yet forgiven
 unless they repent their sins.

Christianity or any religion may be a poison but god dont want
religion either.

[1713418367]

1713418367

[1713418367]

1713418367

[1713418367]

1713418367

[1713418367]

1713418367

[1713418367]

1713418367

[1713418367]

1713418367

[BADecker]

All the comments very confusing all you are not believing to god
 has been already forgive if you are a good man.

All those believe god but not a good man is not yet forgiven
 unless they repent their sins.

Christianity or any religion may be a poison but god dont want
religion either.

Sin makes time lost. Time cannot be returned even if the sinner pays for his sin in this life.

The only way to receive Heaven is to believe that Jesus took punishment for all sins, even time lost.

[Moloch]

Guess it's easier to fight with a moron, isn't it?

You are a child who thinks we are fighting... I'm ignoring you, because you are trolling

You aren't even attempting to have a debate... BADecker is at least trying to debate, however poorly

You are simply attacking me, and trying to derail the conversation with 3-page long spam posts

[organofcorti]

Hey, a testable prediction! Can you give us an estimate of when exactly you think Moloch's self-destruction will close in on him? I'd like to check it for accuracy.

Questions such as this one sometimes require observation over a few generations to decisively answer.

I'm happy for BADecker to claim a confidence interval for his claim. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

Consider Revelation 9:6 <snip>

That's not actually a confidence interval for a time period. You've answered a request for data with a wall of text I'm sure some found interesting, but I wanted data so I could design an experiment that would test your claim.

Can you provide that data?

[organofcorti]

Religion is pure evil.

True. But what does that say about all the people? All people are religious in one way or another.

No, all people are not religious in one way or another.

[BADecker]

Religion is pure evil.

True. But what does that say about all the people? All people are religious in one way or another.

No, all people are not religious in one way or another.

People who are not religious about their breathing are not people. Their body's are people-like. But they are dead, and therefore are not entirely people. Other than that, all people are religious about their breathing if nothing else.

[mprep]

Guess it's easier to fight with a moron, isn't it?

You are a child who thinks we are fighting... I'm ignoring you, because you are trolling

You aren't even attempting to have a debate... BADecker is at least trying to debate, however poorly

You are simply attacking me, and trying to derail the conversation with 3-page long spam posts

You are a child who thinks we are fighting...

I wasn't fighting, I was participating in a discussion that you started and refuting your claims. You're the one who just decided to take your ball and go home when you felt the heat coming.

I'm ignoring you, because you are trolling

Sure, bud. I'll say what I said to the rather dense conspiracy theorist trickyriky:

That warped view of the world again.... Keep telling yourself that - would be hard to fall asleep if you didn't.

You aren't even attempting to have a debate... BADecker is at least trying to debate, however poorly

I am trying to discuss, it's just that you keep repeating "tl;dr" like a broken record and ignore any reasoning above the intelligence level of middle schooler.

You are simply attacking me, and trying to derail the conversation with 3-page long spam posts

Yeah, because source-less and specifically your claims are OK, but claims backed by reasoning, arguments, sources and different perspectives is totally spam.

/sarcasm

Anyway, unless you actually have something substantial to add, with sources and evidence of course, I think I proved my point of you not looking to discuss but to bash religion, Moloch, duke of hypocrisy, deflection, ignorance and (although much more borderline than most) pseudo-intelligence - enjoy your titles. I'll let myself out.  

P.S. Extra points for calling a moderator of the forum you are discussing in a troll.

[BADecker]

Hey, a testable prediction! Can you give us an estimate of when exactly you think Moloch's self-destruction will close in on him? I'd like to check it for accuracy.

Questions such as this one sometimes require observation over a few generations to decisively answer.

I'm happy for BADecker to claim a confidence interval for his claim. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

Consider Revelation 9:6 <snip>

That's not actually a confidence interval for a time period. You've answered a request for data with a wall of text I'm sure some found interesting, but I wanted data so I could design an experiment that would test your claim.

Can you provide that data?

Can't do it. Jesus says that nobody knows.

Other than that, when checking the gravestones for length of life, most people don't make it to more than a hundred years. So, come back in a hundred years and we can take it from there.

Of course, science might find a way to extend life indefinitely. And aside from getting hit by a Mack truck, Moloch might live for a long time if the anti-aging actually works. So come back after science implements anti-aging that extends life indefinitely, and we can take it from there.

If the judgment day comes first, you won't be able to use data or statistics anyway.

[CoinCube]

Jewish Rabbi on Slavery in the Old Testament
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/305549/jewish/Torah-Slavery-and-the-Jews.htm

Torah comes from the Hebrew word for "law" and refers to the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Let's start simple:

Take an agrarian society surrounded by hostile nations. Go in there and forcefully abolish slavery. The result? War, bloodshed, hatred, prejudice, poverty and eventually, a return to slavery until the underlying conditions change. Which is pretty much what happened in the American South when the semi-industrialized North imposed their laws upon the agrarian South. And in Texas when Mexico attempted to abolish slavery among the Anglophones there.
Not a good idea. Better idea: Place humane restrictions upon the institution of indentured servitude. Yes, it's still ugly, but in the meantime, you'll teach people compassion and kindness. Educate. Make workshops. Go white-water rafting together. (Hey, why didn't Abe Lincoln think of white-water rafting?) Eventually, things change and slavery becomes an anachronism for such a society.

Which is pretty much what happened to Jewish society. Note this: At a time when Romans had literally thousands of slaves per citizen, even the wealthiest Jews held very modest numbers of servants. And those servants, the Talmud tells us, were treated better by their masters than foreign kings would treat their own subjects.
Torah teaches us how to run a libertarian society--through education and participation. Elsewhere in the world, emperors and aristocracy knew only how to govern a mass of people through oppression. Look what happened to Rome.

Getting Real Change

So you can see where I'm getting to with the slavery thing. If G d would simply and explicitly declare all the rules, precisely as He wants His world to look and what we need to do about it, the Torah would never become real to us. No matter how much we would do and how good we would be, we would remain aliens to the process.
So, too, with slavery (and there are many other examples): In the beginning, the world starts off as a place where oppressing others is a no-qualms, perfectly acceptable practice. It's not just the practice Torah needs to deal with, it's the attitude. So Torah involves us in arriving at that attitude. To the point that we will say, "Even though the Torah lets us, we don't do things that way."

Which means that we've really learnt something. And now, we can teach it to others. Because those things you're just told, those you cannot teach. You can only teach that which you have discovered on your own.
History bears this out. Historically, it has been the Oral Torah, rather than the Written Torah, that has had the greatest impact on civilization. As much as Rome ruled over Judea, Jewish values deeply transformed Rome. One of the results was the legal privileges eventually granted to slaves and the gradual recognition of the value of human life.

...

Christianity’s influence, in the west, set into motion the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of status.

http://crossandquill.com/journey/the-influence-of-christianity-on-western-civilization/

Take the conflict between the Christian emperor Theodosius the Great and St. Ambrose. It happened in 300 A.D. when some in Thessalonica rioted and aroused the anger of the emperor who overreacted by slaughtering approximately seven thousand people, most of whom were innocent. Bishop Ambrose asked the emperor to repent and when Theodosius refused, the bishop excommunicated him. After a month Theodosius prostrated himself and repented in Ambrose’s cathedral.

Ambrose readmitted the emperor only after several months of penance and when he promoted a law, which in the case of death sentences would allow a thirty-day lag before the execution would be enforced. One can only speculate how many other massacres were avoided throughout history by the mitigating influence of a religion who's commandments include "Thou shalt not kill"

[organofcorti]

Hey, a testable prediction! Can you give us an estimate of when exactly you think Moloch's self-destruction will close in on him? I'd like to check it for accuracy.

Questions such as this one sometimes require observation over a few generations to decisively answer.

I'm happy for BADecker to claim a confidence interval for his claim. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

Consider Revelation 9:6 <snip>

That's not actually a confidence interval for a time period. You've answered a request for data with a wall of text I'm sure some found interesting, but I wanted data so I could design an experiment that would test your claim.

Can you provide that data?

Can't do it. Jesus says that nobody knows.

Other than that, when checking the gravestones for length of life, most people don't make it to more than a hundred years. So, come back in a hundred years and we can take it from there.

Of course, science might find a way to extend life indefinitely. And aside from getting hit by a Mack truck, Moloch might live for a long time if the anti-aging actually works. So come back after science implements anti-aging that extends life indefinitely, and we can take it from there.

If the judgment day comes first, you won't be able to use data or statistics anyway.

That's a shame.

Of course, if you don't know, then you can't say that he's headed for "self destruction", can you? I guess you could say "in my opinion, that is self destructive behaviour" but you can't make any claim stronger than that, right?

[Moloch]

P.S. Extra points for calling a moderator of the forum you are discussing in a troll.

Being a mod does not make you superior in any way

You say I run away and shit... have I?  Am I not here?

You have said twice now that you are finished with this conversation, yet you come back simply to troll



You are the one who does nothing but insult me... can you try attacking my argument for once?

I have told you several times now that if you want to debate a topic that is good... just pick a topic besides ad-hominem attacking a straw-man

Have you tried staying on topic a single time?  We were talking about God condoning slavery in the bible, and you jump in with a 3-page long post which has nothing to do with God, slavery or the bible... do you not realize how ridiculous, long (tl;dr), and time consuming it would be if I picked apart your 3-page post and replied to it in the same manner?  go troll someone else asshole

[mprep]

P.S. Extra points for calling a moderator of the forum you are discussing in a troll.

Being a mod does not make one superior in any way...

You say I run away and shit... have I?  Am I not here?

You are the one who does nothing but insult me... can you try attacking my argument for once?

I have told you several times now that if you want to debate a topic that is good... just pick a topic besides insulting me...

Have you tried staying on topic a single time?  We were talking about slavery in the bible and you jump in with a 3-page long post which has nothing to do with slavery... go troll someone else asshole

P.S. Extra points for calling a moderator of the forum you are discussing in a troll.

Being a mod does not make one superior in any way...

If I was a troll (which breaks the rules), I wouldn't have been selected as a mod or would've been kicked out. However, let's stay on topic and also add in content relevant to the topic's name (feel free to continue though).

You say I run away and shit... have I?  Am I not here?

No, you just seem to plug up your ears and go "lalalalala I can't hear you".

You are the one who does nothing but insult me... can you try attacking my argument for once?

Oh boy, here we go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14336544#msg14336544
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14354149#msg14354149
<The point at which I realized that not only you have failed to include sources, you weren't planning to do so after I pointed out>
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14354772#msg14354772 <----- Regarding the argument as well as lack of sources within your claims

All of them "attack" your argument or the validity of your arguments' basis. It's just that you don't respond or respond with more source-less and evidence-less claims or just your pathetic "tl;dr" deflection.

I have told you several times now that if you want to debate a topic that is good... just pick a topic besides insulting me...

I would if you'd stop ignoring my arguments against the claims you've put out. Also, a single topic contains several sub-topics which are used for the formulation of an argument - exactly what you did when you started making various claims (which I provided rebuttal for, which you said is too many topics).

Have you tried staying on topic a single time?  We were talking about slavery in the bible and you jump in with a 3-page long post which has nothing to do with slavery... go troll someone else asshole

Cough, cough... Have you tried taking comprehension classes? The following is entirely about "slavery in the bible" (excuse me for actually providing a comprehensive perspective with the discussion of evidence rather than a watered down and inaccurate "this is not that" statement):

<...>

If you want me to pick, how about slavery in the bible?

You mean the Christian bible (The New Testament)? Because it does overwrite the Old Testament as it was meant as a prophecy (referred to as "gospel") for the coming of Jesus Christ.

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...

[X]Bold statement with no evidence
[X]Previous arguments dismissed

You say I did not provide evidence for this claim, but I did... I said christianity had preached it... the bible supports slavery in at least a dozen places... do you need me to quote the exact verses for you, or are you capable of using google?

Here's the link again since you must have missed it (evidence you claim I didn't provide)

Slavery:

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property.

More slavery in the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

See this for my answer to your "evidence":

Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy are all part of the Old Testament (also often referred to as the Hebrew Bible), which is overwritten by the New Testament in many branches (and/or sects) of Christianity. The Old Testament was meant as a holy book for the time (not for eternity) and became obsolete in many situations. Also, in terms of cherry-picking, that's why different branches and sects of both Christianity and other religions exist - there's constant debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) on what is accepted and what is not, especially as time progresses and our culture changes.

Sources (in terms of what I based the arguments upon):
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws/506#506
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3733/does-the-new-testament-override-the-old-testament
<...>

What you haven't proven is this (I'll bold and underline your statement I'm concerned with):

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament

Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery:

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this:

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men"

And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote:

However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

<...>

[Moloch]

(mprep doesn't consider this trolling)

I try to avoid tl;dr posts...

If you have something in specific you would like to debate, please be specific and short... I will not debate 20 different topics each post... 1-2 tops

A.K.A. "I put something out without any evidence, got it debunked with evidence and now am too lazy to actually discuss with someone who can actually take the heat"

Guess it's easier to fight with a moron, isn't it?

No, you just seem to plug up your ears and go "lalalalala I can't hear you".
Have you tried taking comprehension classes?

Are you still here?

Didn't you say that you were leaving?

I bid you a good day for I'm tired of participating in another discussion

I'll let myself out.  

[mprep]

(still trolling)

Are you still here?

Didn't you say that you were leaving?

I bid you a good day for I'm tired of participating in another discussion

I'll let myself out.  

First quote is crossed out (with a short note) if you're slow on the uptake and I would've if you were to stop spreading the butthurt of getting beaten in a discussion against a Christian. Besides I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I'm trying to prove that you are a pseudo-intellectual hypocrite to others who unfortunately stumble upon this discussion.

Feel free to resign this as trolling just like you did with all the arguments of mine you couldn't refute and all the arguments of yours you couldn't back up - we wouldn't want new ideas in our "proper scientific community", don't we ?

[Moloch]

Are you ready to debate slavery in the bible, or are you still trolling as if you won some fictitious argument that never happened?

[mprep]

Are you ready to debate slavery in the bible, or are you still trolling?

Here ya go (spoiler: there is no simple and concise answer):

<...>

If you want me to pick, how about slavery in the bible?

You mean the Christian bible (The New Testament)? Because it does overwrite the Old Testament as it was meant as a prophecy (referred to as "gospel") for the coming of Jesus Christ.

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...

[X]Bold statement with no evidence
[X]Previous arguments dismissed

You say I did not provide evidence for this claim, but I did... I said christianity had preached it... the bible supports slavery in at least a dozen places... do you need me to quote the exact verses for you, or are you capable of using google?

Here's the link again since you must have missed it (evidence you claim I didn't provide)

Slavery:

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property.

More slavery in the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

See this for my answer to your "evidence":

Leviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy are all part of the Old Testament (also often referred to as the Hebrew Bible), which is overwritten by the New Testament in many branches (and/or sects) of Christianity. The Old Testament was meant as a holy book for the time (not for eternity) and became obsolete in many situations. Also, in terms of cherry-picking, that's why different branches and sects of both Christianity and other religions exist - there's constant debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) on what is accepted and what is not, especially as time progresses and our culture changes.

Sources (in terms of what I based the arguments upon):
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15/do-we-have-to-obey-the-laws-of-the-bible-if-so-what-laws/506#506
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3733/does-the-new-testament-override-the-old-testament
<...>

What you haven't proven is this (I'll bold and underline your statement I'm concerned with):

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament

Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery:

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this:

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men"

And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote:

However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

<...>

[Moloch]

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament

Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery:

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this:

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men"

And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote:

However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

FINALLY!!!  something with a tiny bit of substance (albeit completely wrong)

So, you are claiming that although the bible condones slavery, it was "the good kind of slavery"?  That's your defense?

Where is the support for this?  You claim it's in the bible, but it's not...

Slavery in the bible is very cruel and quite descriptive... it includes things like, "you are allowed to beat your slave so long as he does not die within 2 days", and "you can pass your slaves to your children as property"... how can you defend either of those?

Slavery:

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property.

[organofcorti]

Religion is pure evil.

True. But what does that say about all the people? All people are religious in one way or another.

No, all people are not religious in one way or another.

People who are not religious about their breathing are not people. Their body's are people-like. But they are dead, and therefore are not entirely people. Other than that, all people are religious about their breathing if nothing else.

I'm certainly not religious about breathing. My breathing is involuntary. I think that most gods prefer you to have a choice about belief, free will etc? You're focussing on one definition of religion which you're then applying to everything.

In the same way I can say you're almost completely atheist. You don't believe in the vast majority of gods that have ever existed (or have been claimed to exist), do you? So applying similar logic to yours, you must be mostly an atheist.

[mprep]

Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament

Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery:

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this:

In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men"

And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote:

However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

FINALLY!!!  something with a tiny bit of substance (albeit completely wrong)

So, you are claiming that although the bible condones slavery, it was "the good kind of slavery"?  That's your defense?

Where is the support for this?  You claim it's in the bible, but it's not... slavery in the bible is very cruel and quite descriptive... it included things like, "you are allowed to beat your slave so long as he does not die within 2 days"

FINALLY!!!  something with a tiny bit of substance (albeit completely wrong)

(After I requoted it 2 times)

So, you are claiming that although the bible condones slavery, it was "the good kind of slavery"?  That's your defense?

My defense in said post is that the bible (New Testament, see this post regarding the Old Testament: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14336544#msg14336544) regulates the situation back then (when slavery was common), however expressed no support of the act of enslavement.

Where is the support for this?  You claim it's in the bible, but it's not... slavery in the bible is very cruel and quite descriptive... it included things like, "you are allowed to beat your slave so long as he does not die within 2 days"

That's Old Testament. When referring to the Christian bible, the New Testament is implied. The Old Testament was meant for the time before the coming of Christ (which by those practicing Judaism is THE bible since they don't consider Jesus as the son of God and are still waiting for one (the reason for 2 religions - Christianity and Judaism - instead of one)). I already linked it in this post but here's a rather brief explanation in regards to the Old Testament: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14336544#msg14336544

[Moloch]

So, you are claiming that although the bible condones slavery, it was "the good kind of slavery"?  That's your defense?

My defense in said post is that the bible regulates the situation back then (when slavery was common), however expressed no support of the act of enslavement.

Where is the support for this?  You claim it's in the bible, but it's not... slavery in the bible is very cruel and quite descriptive... it included things like, "you are allowed to beat your slave so long as he does not die within 2 days"

That's Old Testament. When referring to the Christian bible, the New Testament is implied. The Old Testament was meant for the time before the coming of Christ (which by those practicing Judaism is THE bible since they don't consider Jesus as the son of God and are still waiting for one (the reason for 2 religions - Christianity and Judaism - instead of one)). I already linked it in this post but here's a rather brief explanation in regards to the Old Testament: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14336544#msg14336544

That's the dumbest argument christians have ever made...

This whole notion of the New Testament overwriting the Old Testament is complete horseshit nonsense that is not supported anywhere in the bible or dogma of christianity

You cannot possibly say you believe the creation story, flood, exodus, and 10-commandments are 100% true and accurate, but the other 603 commandments in the Old Testament don't count... that's bullshit cherry-picking to the extreme

Besides, Jesus himself said, "Not a jot or tittle of the Law will change until I return" (speaking of Mosaic law, the Old Testament laws!)

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.