Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you recognize that G75 was wrong when he stated the following?
"The Bible does not approve of the kind of slavery your probably thinking of...It was only a slavery to repay a debt you could not repay but could be repaid with time and then you were set free. There were many laws set up by God to protect the slaves from any kind of cruelty of anykind."

No the Gman speaks truth! I speak truth! we are awesome!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No the Gman speaks truth! I speak truth! we are awesome!

Actually "Gman" is just plain wrong as evidenced by the following:

Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.


Clearly slaves can be kept permanently and even be passed down to the slave owner's sons

Exodus 21
20“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21“If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

Clearly beating a slave is allowed - just not so badly that he doesn't survive a day or two.

Do you really think that you and G75 present the JWs in a good light by denying the truth?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually "Gman" is just plain wrong as evidenced by the following:

[quote]Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of t ...[text shortened]...
Do you really think that you and G75 present the JWs in a good light by denying the truth?

denying what truth, your truth? plueeeeze the European individual chess championships
just started and i aint gonna miss it while remonstrating with you.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really think that you and G75 present the JWs in a good light by denying the truth?

They are just flat out lying and not even bothering to hide it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
denying what truth, your truth? plueeeeze the European individual chess championships
just started and i aint gonna miss it while remonstrating with you.

The truth is that the verses I cited prove G75 wrong.

G75's and your denial of that fact only serve to undermine any credibility you have as well as the credibility of the JWs which you represent. As such, why would anyone even consider taking your views seriously? If anything you are driving people away from the JWs with your repeated antics.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The truth is that the verses I cited prove G75 wrong.

G75's and your denial of that fact only serve to undermine any credibility you have as well as the credibility of the JWs which you represent. As such, why would anyone even consider taking your views seriously? If anything you are driving people away from the JWs with your repeated antics.

sigh, ok while Caruana thinks of his move, the Gman was referring to slavery among
Israelites , you are referring to slavery among non Israelites and trying to find some
pretence for your vain and scurrilous assertions, that he was misrepresenting some
truth, when in fact he was referring to a different facet, obviously above your limited
knowledge and here you are seeking to project that ignorance through an accusation, I
mock your attempt! Your verse proves nothing, they are not even referring to the
same criteria! so slavery was permitted among the Israelites to take as a hereditary
possession slaves from among the nations, what of it?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

Paul and Jesus weigh in on the issue of slavery. Paul urged slaves to obey their masters; Jesus mentioned slavery in one of his parables: "And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Christ could have dealt with the Roman Empire by declaring it "evil" and ordering a revolt. After all, the Roman Empire was built on slavery.

Instead, Jesus, as well as Paul, spoke of spiritual liberation instead. Those who were slaves could be "free" in such regard at the drop of a hat, without a single shot fired.

So do you feel that the answer is for revolt? Were men like Jesus and Paul misled in this regard?

Originally posted by whodey
Christ could have dealt with the Roman Empire by declaring it "evil" and ordering a revolt. After all, the Roman Empire was built on slavery.

Instead, Jesus, as well as Paul, spoke of spiritual liberation instead. Those who were slaves could be "free" in such regard at the drop of a hat, without a single shot fired.

So do you feel that the answer is for revolt? Were men like Jesus and Paul misled in this regard?

False dichotomy.

You can say that a practice is bad and shouldn't be practised or condoned without calling for a
revolt against a vastly superior and brutal opponent.

They could have said that the Romans keeping slaves is wrong and we wont have any part in it
and wont keep slaves ourselves without advocating trying to forcefully stop the Romans from
keeping slaves.


However what they actually said was that you shouldn't beat your slaves so hard that they die
in less than two days.



Also if god wanted to stop slavery do you think he would have any trouble doing so against any army?

Originally posted by googlefudge
They are just flat out lying and not even bothering to hide it.

Yes RC is just "flat out lying". He has a long history of doing just that as I've proven in the past. Once he even admitted it, only to later deny admitting it. When I posted proof that he had admitted he vacillated between denying admitting it and admitting he admitted it. It was quite fascinating in a way.

From what I can tell, he believes that his antics do "hide it". So it isn't so much that he isn't "even bothering to hide it", as he's ridiculously inept in his attempts to do so.

I don't think we've seen enough from G75 to say that he is "flat out lying". He may simply be mistaken and has yet to admit it. Based on previous performance, I don't expect G75 to admit it, but I don't expect to see RC type antics either.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, ok while Caruana thinks of his move, the Gman was referring to slavery among
Israelites , you are referring to slavery among non Israelites and trying to find some
pretence for your vain and scurrilous assertions, that he was misrepresenting some
truth, when in fact he was referring to a different facet, obviously above your limited
kn ...[text shortened]... ng the Israelites to take as a hereditary
possession slaves from among the nations, what of it?

That just isn't true.

Once again G75 said the following:
"The Bible does not approve of the kind of slavery your probably thinking of...It was only a slavery to repay a debt you could not repay but could be repaid with time and then you were set free. There were many laws set up by God to protect the slaves from any kind of cruelty of anykind."

The fact is that the Bible does condone permanent slavery as well as the beating of slaves as opposed to what G75 stated. What G75 stated is clearly wrong.

Your attempt to "spin" it as " the Gman was referring to slavery among
Israelites , you are referring to slavery among non Israelites" is absurd.

But then, you're absurd.

Originally posted by whodey
Christ could have dealt with the Roman Empire by declaring it "evil" and ordering a revolt. After all, the Roman Empire was built on slavery.

Instead, Jesus, as well as Paul, spoke of spiritual liberation instead. Those who were slaves could be "free" in such regard at the drop of a hat, without a single shot fired.

So do you feel that the answer is for revolt? Were men like Jesus and Paul misled in this regard?

I agree with googlefudge. A revolt wouldn't have worked, but Jesus and Paul could have urged their followers not to participate in slavery in any way.

Jesus never intended to lead such a revolt. The most violent act he committed was the driving of the money changers from the temple. Even then, there is no record that anyone was killed.

Jesus did not allow his followers to revolt when he was taken by the Romans to be crucified. He told Peter to put away his sword.

Jesus once boldly stepped in and stopped an angry mob from stoning an adulterous woman to death. He advocated for her through the power of his words, not the might of his fists. He could have advocated for slaves in the same fashion.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That just isn't true.

Once again G75 said the following:
"The Bible does not approve of the kind of slavery your probably thinking of...It was only a slavery to repay a debt you could not repay but could be repaid with time and then you were set free. There were many laws set up by God to protect the slaves from any kind of cruelty of anykind."

Th ...[text shortened]... ou are referring to slavery among non Israelites" is absurd.

But then, you're absurd.

please visit boohoo.com

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, ok while Caruana thinks of his move, the Gman was referring to slavery among
Israelites , you are referring to slavery among non Israelites and trying to find some
pretence for your vain and scurrilous assertions, that he was misrepresenting some
truth, when in fact he was referring to a different facet, obviously above your limited
kn ...[text shortened]... ng the Israelites to take as a hereditary
possession slaves from among the nations, what of it?

There were some slaves in the American South that were treated well by their masters and did not want to leave even after they were granted the freedom to do so in 1865. This does not change the fact that owning another human being is morally wrong, no matter how well you treat them. Forcing someone to work for you for no pay is wrong, even if they do not resist. It's still exploitation.

Even during American slavery, the owner had the option to free his slaves. Ben Franklin freed his two slaves after he became convinced that slavery was wrong. But the damage is not so easily undone. The slaves lacked education and they were only skilled in doing menial hard labor. They were not used to managing their own affairs. The transition to an independent life would not be easy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please visit boohoo.com

Unfortunately it seems you are too prideful to admit your mistake. That you choose to lie and use other forms of deceit in an attempts to cover it up, makes it all the more reprehensible.

Once again:
"G75's and your denial of that fact only serve to undermine any credibility you have as well as the credibility of the JWs which you represent. As such, why would anyone even consider taking your views seriously? If anything you are driving people away from the JWs with your repeated antics."

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you should be in politics, you even manage to put a positive spin on slavery.

you should also hang your head in shame.

i really don't find it surprising. these same people defend and rationalize genocide, why wouldn't they defend slavery? after all, if their demented god said it's okay, it must be okay.