- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Jan 13
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNo, Lies add up, they don't cancel out.
What you seem to fail to understand is that RC lies about lying. Doesn't that cancel it out? It's like taking the negative of a negative.
Think Bill Clinton... First he lied about sleeping with ML, then he Lied about lying...
The second Lie didn't cancel out the first one...
It's basically just doubling down on the original lie.
And I am perfectly aware that RC lies about lying...
The vastly shorter thing to list would be the things he doesn't lie about...
If only I could think of any...
18 Jan 13
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeEvidently the humor was too subtle for you.
No, Lies add up, they don't cancel out.
Think Bill Clinton... First he lied about sleeping with ML, then he Lied about lying...
The second Lie didn't cancel out the first one...
It's basically just doubling down on the original lie.
And I am perfectly aware that RC lies about lying...
The vastly shorter thing to list would be the things he doesn't lie about...
If only I could think of any...
RC can't seem to help but show his "fruit".
Luke 6
43“For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. 44“For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. 45“The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
18 Jan 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou couldn't think of any because,
No, Lies add up, they don't cancel out.
Think Bill Clinton... First he lied about sleeping with ML, then he Lied about lying...
The second Lie didn't cancel out the first one...
It's basically just doubling down on the original lie.
And I am perfectly aware that RC lies about lying...
The vastly shorter thing to list would be the things he doesn't lie about...
If only I could think of any...
1. There are known unknowns.
2. There are unknown unknowns
The known's that we know about, we know about.
But there are also unknown's which we do not know about.
If there were lies it may be that they were just unknown.
But there is also the possibility of them being known and lied about
and therefore to you they would be unknown. But to the liar who
knows, they would to him be known.
Whether these unknown are known to you is the question.
We have to gather the raw intelligence and separate it into
known's which are known and known's which were unknown.
Then also there are the unknowns.
Some of which were known and others which were unknown.
Whether you know it or not it could be to others unknown.
Do you know what I mean?
Donald Rumsfeld.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou're completely missing the point. You stated that "everyone can see you are a troll uninterested in honest and legitimate discussion, there is nothing personal about stating facts." This is incorrect, because at least one person, being me, cannot see that. Therefore the statement is false. It doesn't matter how elegant an argument you make, it doesn't matter whether or not FMF actually IS a troll uninterested etc. The fact that I cannot see that, makes your statement false.
sigh, as has been pointed out, the question is with reference to Christians, that is, those persons not under the ordinances of the Mosaic law that you make reference to in the Hebrew portion of scripture.
If you are still unable to understand this, I really don't know how explain it any more clearly.
I see no responding to the rest of your post. If you cannot follow the simple logic falsifying your troll accusation, it would clearly be a waste of time and effort discussing the more complex issue with you.
18 Jan 13
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne[/b]lets see how honest you are think of one or is that a rafter protruding from your eye?
Evidently the humor was too subtle for you.
RC can't seem to help but show his "fruit".
.
Luke 6
43“For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. 44“For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. 45 ...[text shortened]... ngs forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart
have you ever sinned?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSo you cannot substantiate the claims you made with regard to the bible, fine, focus on petty irrelevancies and you are correct, i expect reason, not mere opinion, thank you from refraining from wasting my time.
You're completely missing the point. You stated that[b] "everyone can see you are a troll uninterested in honest and legitimate discussion, there is nothing personal about stating facts." This is incorrect, because at least one person, being me, cannot see that. Therefore the statement is false. It doesn't matter how elegant an argument you make, it would clearly be a waste of time and effort discussing the more complex issue with you.[/b]
18 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf not the ones laid out in the OT, under what ordinances are you claiming Christians have the God given right to own slaves in the 21st century? Where are they in the NT part of the Bible?
sigh, as has been pointed out, the question is with reference to Christians, that is, those persons not under the ordinances of the Mosaic law that you make reference to in the Hebrew portion of scripture.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am perfectly able and more than willing to discuss those issues. I just don't think you'll be able to understand the reasoning, if you can't understand why your post regarding "everyone"'s opinion is false.
So you cannot substantiate the claims you made with regard to the bible, fine, focus on petty irrelevancies and you are correct, i expect reason, not mere opinion, thank you from refraining from wasting my time.
Seeing that FMF was too busy trolling and avalanche the bad ol putty cat could not substantiate the claims he made with regard to the bible being a poor source of guidance, I feel it a moral duty to lay before the forum the actual guiding principles which governed both slave owners and slaves during the first century so that a comparison may be made with any other system,
(Philemon 10-17) I am exhorting you concerning my child, to whom I became a father while in my [prison] bonds, Onesimus, formerly useless to you but now useful to you and to me. This very one I am sending back to you, yes, him, that is, my own tender affections. I would like to hold him back for myself that in place of you he might keep on ministering to me in the [prison] bonds I bear for the sake of the good news. But without your consent I do not want to do anything, so that your good act may be, not as under compulsion, but of your own free will. Perhaps really on this account he broke away for an hour, that you may have him back forever, no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, as a brother beloved, especially so to me, yet how much more so to you both in fleshly relationship and in [the] Lord. If, therefore, you consider me a sharer, receive him kindly the way you would me.
1. Firstly that Philemon was to treat Onesimus, a run away salve as a beloved brother (contrast that with the Roman method of dealing with a runway slave)
2. Paul hints that Onesimus should be freed but does not press the matter.
3. Philemon was counselled to receive Onesimus kindly.
We can readily discern that the Biblical perspective for the treatment of slaves as practised by first century Christians is diametrically opposed to that which marred other forms if a comparison were to be made.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOk then you cannot see it, it does not mean that FMF is or is not a troll, it simply means that you refuse to acknowledge it. Everyone except avalanchethecat and anyone else that refuses to acknowledge it, happy now?
I am perfectly able and more than willing to discuss those issues. I just don't think you'll be able to understand the reasoning, if you can't understand why your post regarding "everyone"'s opinion is false.
18 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow can you extrapolate from someone called Philemon having a slave called Onesimus in the first centrury, that Christians have the God given right to own slaves in the twenty first century ? Where are the ordinances you were talking about?
seeing that FMF was too busy trolling and avalanche the bad ol putty cat could not substantiate the claims he made with regard to the bible being a poor source of guidance, I feel it a moral duty to lay before the forum the actual guiding principles which governed both slave owners and slaves during the first century so that a comparison may be made ...[text shortened]... tians is diametrically opposed to that which marred other forms if a comparison were to be made.
18 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you reckon everyone, except avalanchethecat and anyone else, agrees with you?
Ok then you cannot see it, it does not mean that FMF is or is not a troll, it simply means that you refuse to acknowledge it. Everyone except avalanchethecat and anyone else that refuses to acknowledge it, happy now?
18 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNope. I know what I think rather better than you know what I think. For you to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Or you are calling me a liar. Either way, I would be foolish to consider attempting a rational discussion of this subject with you.
Ok then you cannot see it, it does not mean that FMF is or is not a troll, it simply means that you refuse to acknowledge it. Everyone except avalanchethecat and anyone else that refuses to acknowledge it, happy now?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWe are dealing with empirical evidence, the actual matter under discussion is, Christianity and slavery, if you have no interest in the subject then i would be glad that you desist, for as far as I can discern you seem more given to what amounts to pettiness. I have for the record not called you a liar, merely stated that you refuse to acknowledge certain self evident facts with regard to trolls and trolling patterns of behaviour and that you cannot or refuse to substantiate the claims that you have made with regard to the Bible being a poor source of guidance, either way its nothing to me. Cya.
Nope. I know what I think rather better than you know what I think. For you to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Or you are calling me a liar. Either way, I would be foolish to consider attempting a rational discussion of this subject with you.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRoman treatment of runway slaves,
Seeing that FMF was too busy trolling and avalanche the bad ol putty cat could not substantiate the claims he made with regard to the bible being a poor source of guidance, I feel it a moral duty to lay before the forum the actual guiding principles which governed both slave owners and slaves during the first century so that a comparison may be made ...[text shortened]... tians is diametrically opposed to that which marred other forms if a comparison were to be made.
Slave Punishment - Runaway Slaves
A runaway slave could not legally be the object of sale. A class of persons called Fugitivarii made it their business to recover runaway slaves. The rights of the master over the slave were in no way affected by his running away. Runaway slaves were branded on the forehead with letters denoting the slave as a runaway (FUG) which was an abbreviation of "fugitivus," meaning "runaway". The deliberate breaking of the joints or bones was also a punishment inflicted on runaway slaves.
In complete contrast to the counsel Paul gave to Philemon.
Roman Attitudes to Slave Punishment
Under the Roman Republic the owners of slaves were allowed to inflict whatever treatment or punishment they wanted on a slave. The Latin word Potestas was applied to the master's power over the slave, and the same word was used to express the father's power over his children. No injury or punishment inflicted by an owner was a crime. It was not illegal to kill a mere slave - they were not perceived as people they were perceived as commodities. When property or goods were sold which included slaves there were no rules preventing the splitting of husband and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters. These Roman Laws did eventually change during the later era of the Roman Empire.
In complete contrast to the counsel Paul gave to Philemon
http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-life/slave-punishment.htm