How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[BlackJack619]

Lol you still don’t get it.

[thedickus]

Lol you still don’t get it.

Oh I get it. You have multiple personality disorder. The two personalities that we know of have no idea that Jesus and his 12 disciples were torah observant jews and practiced judaism, while both are willing to kill homosexuals for their imaginary god. At least one thinks that slavery must be a good thing if his imaginary god commanded it. One is just a straight up creationist while the other tries to hide behind intelligent design hoping people aren't smart enough to know that intelligent design has zero scientific basis and is simply creationism disguised, didn't work though. At least one is a drug addled homosexual, the other is simply a known troll posting this same stupid bull$hlt across multiple platforms.
You really do need to log off and log back on as Scotty, it's pretty sad when that nutjob is the voice of reason between the two of your personalities.

[BlackJack619]

I can’t hear you can you type louder.

[thedickus]

I can’t hear you can you type louder.

Did you forget the password for the Scotty account? You're a fuking joke.

[BlackJack619]

That’s why you keep coming back right to be entertained? Glad you have a sense of humor.

[thedickus]

That’s why you keep coming back right to be entertained? Glad you have a sense of humor.

There's nothing entertaining about you. You're just another dumba$$ apologist incapable of offering anything other than blatant lies.

[GrouchyUSMC]

The fact you think me telling the truth is an "angry rant" is almost as funny as the fact that you think everyone doesn't know that you and Scotty are the same.

You really don't know anything about Jesus or any of the messiahs/christs do you? Jesus wasn't even the first judaic messiah, and he certainly wasn't the last one. There were even more christian messiahs, some are still alive today. Even more messiahs from other religions. The only thing any of them had/have in common is that they were/all false messiahs. I still can't believe you didn't know that Jesus and his disciples were torah observant jews and practiced judaism. Paul invented the crap you believe in.

I really do wish that you would log out and log back on as Scotty. That version sounded more rational than this version. This version is far more delusional than the Scotty version. Out of curiosity is the Scotty version a homosexual drug addict also? Or is just the Matty version?

The next time you have a conversation with Scotty ask that version of you if he believes that slavery is a good thing like the Matty version does. I'm interested in knowing whether the Scotty version is also so incapable of admitting that his god commanded his followers to commit atrocities against fellow humans that he is able to rationalize that slavery must be good since his god endorsed it, like the Matty version has.

I know I'll regret this but... you do know their version of slavery was vastly different from the slavery perpetuated in the United States, right? Not to mention the Old Testament was giving tons of rights and protections for women and slaves during a time they had none. Historical context is key. That's why no one bases their beliefs solely off of the Old Testament - Judaism has the Talmud, Christianity has the New Testament, and so on.

[thedickus]

I know I'll regret this but... you do know their version of slavery was vastly different from the slavery perpetuated in the United States, right? Not to mention the Old Testament was giving tons of rights and protections for women and slaves during a time they had none. Historical context is key. That's why no one bases their beliefs solely off of the Old Testament - Judaism has the Talmud, Christianity has the New Testament, and so on.

The old testament gave no rights to women, it declared them property. Slavery is slavery regardless of which historical period, a human being owning another human being is morally wrong. Any "god" that would put "rules" on owning slaves is too impotent to actually stop slavery. Any god that impotent is not worthy of worship. That god at no point outlawed slavery. There is NO verse in the old or new testament where god declares slavery wrong.
You are 100% wrong about beliefs not being based off of the old testament. The entire christian faith is based off of the idea of original sin which is in the old testament, where Adam disobeyed god. This original sin necessitated a blood sacrifice to "forgive" everyone born with this "original sin". That's the entire basis of why Jesus came to Earth and was sacrificed. When people say the old testament doesn't really apply they are just completely wrong, what they really mean is they don't agree with the majority of what's in the old testament, so they've managed to convince themselves that it doesn't apply to them. Jesus and his 12 disciples were torah observant jews. The torah consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This is what Jesus taught from. I'll never understand what christian think that Jesus preached, it's not like he had the books of the new testament available to to him and he preached from those. No, he preached from the old testament, he preached to keep those laws. He said he didn't come to abolish them. Christians only seem to think the 10 laws/commandments apply to them. They conveniently forget that Jesus preached to keep all 613 commandments.

[BlackJack619]

If Jesus was such a great Jew,
Why did they try to kill him?

[thedickus]

If Jesus was such a great Jew,
Why did they try to kill him?

He pl$$ed off the jews in charge who complained to the Romans who were ultimately in charge and the Romans killed him.
I answered your question, now lets see how you duck this question yet again.
Why does your god endorse slavery in his book the bible? Why did your god at any point in history tell his people that it was morally OK for them to own other humans as property, beat them as long as they didn't die after a couple of days, and then pass them on to their children? Why did your loving all powerful god allow this?
It's OK to simply say you don't know why your loving all powerful god would endorse the owning of a human being by another human being as property.
You can even log back in as Scotty and let him answer it if you're too afraid to.

[GrouchyUSMC]

The old testament gave no rights to women, it declared them property.

Actually for the time the rights the Bible dictated for them was huge. They gave them a lot of protections and freedoms they were not given before. Not to mention several women are held in high esteem in the Bible. You need to take it into historical context. Maybe even blow the dust off and open it up.

Slavery is slavery regardless of which historical period, a human being owning another human being is morally wrong.

That’s why it’s not the same as the slavery we know of here in the Americas. Kidnapping is a serious crime mentioned in the Bible as being punishable by death. That pretty much would go right against what we think of slavery nowadays.

The OT version of slavery is more similar to indentured servitude where in return for board and resources you would do work for them and receive a small wage. This could be to learn a skill, pay off a debt owed, to earn citizenship, and many other reasons. This was typically only for a few years. These folks could marry, travel, have personal property, and so on. It certainly wasn’t a glamorous lifestyle but it’s not the brutal kind of slavery from the early days of the US.

You are 100% wrong about beliefs not being based off of the old testament. The entire christian faith is based off of the idea of original sin which is in the old testament, where Adam disobeyed god. This original sin necessitated a blood sacrifice to "forgive" everyone born with this "original sin". That's the entire basis of why Jesus came to Earth and was sacrificed.

You’re right. Which is why I said no one bases their faith solely (read: only) on the OT. You’re arguing about something I never said.

They conveniently forget that Jesus preached to keep all 613 commandments.

Incorrect. Especially as that’s an arbitrary number popularized by Judaism over 200 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. That’s the entire reason for the New Commandment and His death in the first place. We don’t need to shed blood anymore to atone for sins because He has done it. Jesus regularly worked, healed, and harvested on the Sabbath while thumbing his nose at the Pharisees.

[brockhoover]

Actually for the time the rights the Bible dictated for them was huge. They gave them a lot of protections and freedoms they were not given before. Not to mention several women are held in high esteem in the Bible. You need to take it into historical context. Maybe even blow the dust off and open it up.



That’s why it’s not the same as the slavery we know of here in the Americas. Kidnapping is a serious crime mentioned in the Bible as being punishable by death. That pretty much would go right against what we think of slavery nowadays.

The OT version of slavery is more similar to indentured servitude where in return for board and resources you would do work for them and receive a small wage. This could be to learn a skill, pay off a debt owed, to earn citizenship, and many other reasons. This was typically only for a few years. These folks could marry, travel, have personal property, and so on. It certainly wasn’t a glamorous lifestyle but it’s not the brutal kind of slavery from the early days of the US.



You’re right. Which is why I said no one bases their faith solely (read: only) on the OT. You’re arguing about something I never said.



Incorrect. Especially as that’s an arbitrary number popularized by Judaism over 200 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. That’s the entire reason for the New Commandment and His death in the first place. We don’t need to shed blood anymore to atone for sins because He has done it. Jesus regularly worked, healed, and harvested on the Sabbath while thumbing his nose at the Pharisees.

Right, in regards to the slavery I believe if I remember correctly they work 6 years and have the option to go free on the 7th year, though many chose to stay for life because as you said it sounded more like a working agreement than slavery we think of in America/today's world etc.

Jesus became the sacrificial lamb not to do away with the law but to fulfill the law. The covenant with God became "written upon our hearts" and it's also why they say circumcision of the heart/no longer required circumcision of foreskin.

In the sacrificial system the unblemished lamb/blood of the innocent animal was used to cover the sin. When Jesus came to fulfill this, he became the lamb and his blood now covers those who believe etc.

The one thing Dickus definitely got right is Jesus didn't do away with the old laws, he did teach the word as it was known at the time. The church is divided now and many Jewish who observe the feasts/Torah etc don't believe in Messiah while many Christians believe that Jesus does away with those things and have instead latched on to the pagan merged holidays i.e Easter, Christmas etc.

You have to take the old testament with the new testament, it is a whole book. You can't disregard the first half of the book. If anyone is interested there is a YouTube channel called deepnword and her connections she makes with the marital language/covenant language is really interesting and solid. She does a Bible study with daily videos and she is well versed in the Hebrew meaning of words and the language, it's a good watch for anyone interested in learning about the Bible as one book vs. Two separate ideas.

[thedickus]

Right, in regards to the slavery I believe if I remember correctly they work 6 years and have the option to go free on the 7th year, though many chose to stay for life because as you said it sounded more like a working agreement than slavery we think of in America/today's world etc.

That only holds true for Israelites, god's people. Unless you're able to trick them into remaining slaves for life, and the bible tells you how, you must let them go after seven years. Otherwise they're your slaves for life. Non Israelites/gentiles you get to keep gentiles as slaves for their lifetime and pass them on to your children as property when you die. The same holds true for the children of your slaves, they also become your property.
There is no "work agreement" that allows a "boss" to beat his "employee" without any repercussions as long as the "employee" doesn't die after a couple of days. This is outright antebellum slavery and is evil. The old testament god endorses this and never outlaws it.

[thedickus]

Actually for the time the rights the Bible dictated for them was huge. They gave them a lot of protections and freedoms they were not given before. Not to mention several women are held in high esteem in the Bible. You need to take it into historical context. Maybe even blow the dust off and open it up.

Indeed Mary Magdalene basically paid for Jesus, she was a sugar momma. The only "protections" the old testament seems to give Israelite women are those sold into slavery by their fathers. Tell me again about the "a lot of protections and freedoms they were not given before" when their fathers can sell them in to slavery under god's endorsement.

That’s why it’s not the same as the slavery we know of here in the Americas. Kidnapping is a serious crime mentioned in the Bible as being punishable by death. That pretty much would go right against what we think of slavery nowadays.

Kidnapping is not slavery, they are totally different. The bible endorses slavery, the bible NEVER outlaws slavery.

The OT version of slavery is more similar to indentured servitude where in return for board and resources you would do work for them and receive a small wage. This could be to learn a skill, pay off a debt owed, to earn citizenship, and many other reasons. This was typically only for a few years. These folks could marry, travel, have personal property, and so on. It certainly wasn’t a glamorous lifestyle but it’s not the brutal kind of slavery from the early days of the US.

I have discussed this on this thread so many times I'm sick of it. Slavery is fuking slavery. This was not typically for a few years. For gentiles this was for the rest of their lives, if they had children then their children also became slaves for the rest of their lives and were passed on to the slave owner's children as common property. Being able to beat someone so badly that the only stipulation was they didn't die after a couple of days is pretty freaking brutal. This is the blueprint that the early days of the US followed for slave owning.

You’re right. Which is why I said no one bases their faith solely (read: only) on the OT. You’re arguing about something I never said.

This is what you said: "That's why no one bases their beliefs solely off of the Old Testament - Judaism has the Talmud, Christianity has the New Testament, and so on."
I disagree because without the old testament and the concept of original sin then the new testament and what decades later morphed into christianity would have never happened. The Abrahamic based religions like judaism, christianity, and islam are based of off the old testament. The latter two are simply re-interpretations of the old testament.

Incorrect. Especially as that’s an arbitrary number popularized by Judaism over 200 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. That’s the entire reason for the New Commandment and His death in the first place. We don’t need to shed blood anymore to atone for sins because He has done it. Jesus regularly worked, healed, and harvested on the Sabbath while thumbing his nose at the Pharisees.

Totally correct. Jesus preached to keep these laws. They weren't popularized 200 years later, they existed while Jesus lived and preached. These are the laws he said to keep. There is no "new commandment", only the laws of god that Jesus taught and preached to keep.

[BlackJack619]

Slavery isn’t the only definition Webster has changed, in the last recent year Webster also changed the definition of many words like women, and vaccines.

Orwell was right.

[thedickus]

Slavery isn’t the only definition Webster has changed, in the last recent year Webster also changed the definition of many words like women, and vaccines.

Orwell was right.

Do you have a fuking thing useful to add to this thread? Please log back in as Scotty, you're just a dumba$$

[GrouchyUSMC]

Indeed Mary Magdalene basically paid for Jesus, she was a sugar momma. The only "protections" the old testament seems to give Israelite women are those sold into slavery by their fathers. Tell me again about the "a lot of protections and freedoms they were not given before" when their fathers can sell them in to slavery under god's endorsement.

They were given equal respect in the eyes of their sons. They were given rights in proceedings of law and actually could defend themselves. If a victim of rape outside the city, only the rapist was put to death and they took her word for it. If it occurred inside the city, the rapist was forced to pay their father a dowry and marry them, being unable to divorce their wife (before there was no repercussions). Widows gained extra rights and protections they didn’t have before. Widows were to stay in the same family and remarry - if the males refused there was repercussions for them and the woman had rights to argue about it. That was just paging through Deuteronomy alone.

Kidnapping is not slavery, they are totally different. The bible endorses slavery, the bible NEVER outlaws slavery.

Exodus 21:16. Just one example where the Bible references the penalty for kidnapping someone and selling them.

I have discussed this on this thread so many times I'm sick of it. Slavery is fuking slavery.

https://www.theologyofwork.org/old-t...exodus-211-11/

This is what you said: "That's why no one bases their beliefs solely off of the Old Testament - Judaism has the Talmud, Christianity has the New Testament, and so on."
I disagree because without the old testament and the concept of original sin then the new testament and what decades later morphed into christianity would have never happened. The Abrahamic based religions like judaism, christianity, and islam are based off off the old testament. The latter two are simply re-interpretations of the old testament.

So where did I say they should ONLY follow the Old Testament? You tried to argue about something that wasn’t said, and are now arguing about the same thing despite the fact I never said that. Of course the OT is an important part of those religions, but it’s not the ONLY important part. You need to work on your reading comprehension more.

Totally correct. Jesus preached to keep these laws.

Why did he break some then?

They weren't popularized 200 years later, they existed while Jesus lived and preached.

The arbitrary 613 number, not the laws themselves. Again, reading comprehension is important if you are actually trying to present an argument.

There is no "new commandment", only the laws of god that Jesus taught and preached to keep.

Have you not read Matthew? The New (or Great) Commandment is considered by many denominations to be the core of the Christian religion. That’s a pretty big oversight my dude. It’s hard to argue about what is or isn’t in a book you haven’t read, which is starting to appear quite likely.

[thedickus]

They were given equal respect in the eyes of their sons. They were given rights in proceedings of law and actually could defend themselves. If a victim of rape outside the city, only the rapist was put to death and they took her word for it. If it occurred inside the city, the rapist was forced to pay their father a dowry and marry them, being unable to divorce their wife (before there was no repercussions). Widows gained extra rights and protections they didn’t have before. Widows were to stay in the same family and remarry - if the males refused there was repercussions for them and the woman had rights to argue about it. That was just paging through Deuteronomy alone.

Women can be sold by their fathers into slavery, you call this women's rights? A man who rapes a woman has to pay of the woman's father and then the woman who was raped has to marry her rapist, you're calling this women's rights too? You're laughable.

Exodus 21:16. Just one example where the Bible references the penalty for kidnapping someone and selling them.

Again WTF does kidnapping have to do with slavery? They are two separate things. You need to learn to comprehend. Where in the bible does god outlaw slavery? It's not there.

So where did I say they should ONLY follow the Old Testament? You tried to argue about something that wasn’t said, and are now arguing about the same thing despite the fact I never said that. Of course the OT is an important part of those religions, but it’s not the ONLY important part. You need to work on your reading comprehension more.

Jesus taught the old testament. He never said he was divine. I covered this is this ridiculous thread ad-nauseam. The only difference is he added more crap about loving your brother, which is nice but hardly a ground breaking concept. What he did say that went against the old testament was the god was going to create a heaven here on Earth for his followers and destroy his enemies (Rome) and that this would happen during the lifetimes of his 12 disciples. This didn't happen. Rome stayed in charge, Jesus died, was never made the king of god's kingdom. Jesus was wrong, his was a false prophet, just like all the ones before and since.

The arbitrary 613 number, not the laws themselves. Again, reading comprehension is important if you are actually trying to present an argument.

Count them yourself. Regardless Jesus preached to keep all of those laws.

Have you not read Matthew? The New (or Great) Commandment is considered by many denominations to be the core of the Christian religion. That’s a pretty big oversight my dude. It’s hard to argue about what is or isn’t in a book you haven’t read, which is starting to appear quite likely.

Matthew is simply a rewrite of Mark with whoever wrote Matthew adding his input. This argument currently is basically about the god of the bible endorsing slavery and never putting an end to it. WTF do you think that Jesus telling his followers to love each other has to do with slavery? Again telling people to love each other is hardly a ground breaking concept. Where does god or Jesus outlaw slavery? Jesus preached to follow and keep all of the laws, all 613 of them.
I've read the stupid bible front to back. There's far more evil than good in that book.

[BlackJack619]

You think God doesn’t want Christian’s to eat bacons? No wonder you are mad at Him

[GrouchyUSMC]

Women can be sold by their fathers into slavery, you call this women's rights? A man who rapes a woman has to pay of the woman's father and then the woman who was raped has to marry her rapist, you're calling this women's rights too? You're laughable.

Comparing an ancient culture to modern day law and morals is a logical fallacy. They had very few rights and were granted many and several protections far beyond what was occurring at the time. If you want to look back with a 2023 eye you will find no other culture compares to what is going on now so don’t be ridiculous.

]Again WTF does kidnapping have to do with slavery? They are two separate things. You need to learn to comprehend. Where in the bible does god outlaw slavery? It's not there.

Then you didn’t bother reading the quote, because that’s the kind of slavery you are thinking about. The article I posted shows there is a huge difference.

[quotw]Jesus taught the old testament. He never said he was divine.[/quote]

You need to read the book of John then. There is specific times He mentions He and God are one. These are some very uninformed arguments.

Count them yourself. Regardless Jesus preached to keep all of those laws.

Why does he deliberately break several in the Bible then and chastise the Pharisees for correcting him? You do know there is different kinds of laws and that many of the ceremonial and civil laws were ended for a very specific reason right?

I've read the stupid bible front to back.

The more you say, the less I believe it.

[thedickus]

Comparing an ancient culture to modern day law and morals is a logical fallacy. They had very few rights and were granted many and several protections far beyond what was occurring at the time. If you want to look back with a 2023 eye you will find no other culture compares to what is going on now so don’t be ridiculous.

FFS I have to keep addressing this complete bull$hlt line of thinking like yours. I have done this so much and have disproved your Johnny come lately a$$. When modern day culture enacts ancient culture laws to keep perpetuating their agenda your argument falls to the wayside. Again tell me how a woman who is raped that "gets" to marry her rapist is a exercising a fuking right, and is somehow is beneficial to women's rights. I'm beginning to think you're nothing more than yet another dumba$$ed apologist on this stupid thread.

Then you didn’t bother reading the quote, because that’s the kind of slavery you are thinking about. The article I posted shows there is a huge difference.

I'm not going to bother to read a stupid website that tries to discredit slavery that allows one human being to own another human being as property and legally be allowed to beat that slave as long as they don't die within a couple of days. Make a better argument, but pro tip here...you fuking can't. Slavery is evil and your fuking god endorses it.

Jesus taught the old testament. He never said he was divine.

You need to read the book of John then. There is specific times He mentions He and God are one. These are some very uninformed arguments.

What part of I've read this fuking book do you just seem to be too stupid to understand? I've read the book of John is known as the asynoptic (big word, that means it ain't like the others) gospel. It was the last written gospel, most likely some 90 - 100 years after the death of Jesus. It's the only one that paints Jesus as "divine". This happened as the shifting thoughts about Jesus were happening. The crap about the fallen woman and Jesus saying let whoever has no sin cast the first stone, only happens in the book of John. And it only appears in versions of the book of John some 400 years after the first writing of the book of John, it was simply added by scribes. You're worse than uniformed. You only read the current version of the bible and won't look into the history of it. You're a joke. You're honestly not worth having an argument with. I can walking into any church in American and find people as stupid as you.

Why does he deliberately break several in the Bible then and chastise the Pharisees for correcting him? You do know there is different kinds of laws and that many of the ceremonial and civil laws were ended for a very specific reason right?

Could be one of the reasons the sanhedrin turned over Jesus to the Romans to have him killed. BTW, he was killed and no one has heard from him again.

The more you say, the less I believe it.

The more you say, the more you sound let yet another apologist unschooled in the historicity of Jesus or the many versions of his christology.

I'm quite honestly tired of interacting with you. You have nothing of consequence to say or any valid arguments to present. Please let the adults continue their conversation.

[GrouchyUSMC]

FFS I have to keep addressing this complete bull$hlt line of thinking like yours. I have done this so much and have disproved your Johnny come lately a$$. When modern day culture enacts ancient culture laws to keep perpetuating their agenda your argument falls to the wayside. Again tell me how a woman who is raped that "gets" to marry her rapist is an exercising a fuking right, and is somehow is beneficial to women's rights. I'm beginning to think you're nothing more than yet another dumba$$ed apologist on this stupid thread.

That’s because clearly you take no time to read before spouting off your uninformed opinion. This is literally what I said.

Actually for the time the rights the Bible dictated for them was huge.

Not nowadays. You are literally screaming at clouds instead of actually discussing facts. Fact - women before the Mosaic Law had much less rights and protections. Bottom line.

I'm not going to bother to read a stupid website

You don’t bother to read anything, that’s the problem. You ask for evidence, it’s given to you, and you won’t even take the time to actually review it. You have already been proven wrong several times yet just keep doubling down on what is wrong and ignoring any evidence presented to you.

Jesus taught the old testament. He never said he was divine.

Wrong. John 8:58. You also never answered the question - If you claimed Jesus obeyed all the laws, why did he break the sabbath? Not once, but several times.

What part of I've read this fuking book do you just seem to be too stupid to understand? I've read the book of John is known as the asynoptic (big word, that means it ain't like the others) gospel. It was the last written gospel, most likely some 90 - 100 years after the death of Jesus. It's the only one that paints Jesus as "divine". This happened as the shifting thoughts about Jesus were happening. The crap about the fallen woman and Jesus saying let whoever has no sin cast the first stone, only happens in the book of John. And it only appears in versions of the book of John some 400 years after the first writing of the book of John, it was simply added by scribes. You're worse than uniformed. You only read the current version of the bible and won't look into the history of it. You're a joke. You're honestly not worth having an argument with. I can walking into any church in American and find people as stupid as you.

So now you’re contradicting yourself. You said He never calls himself divine. Now you say He did but it doesn’t count because it’s only in one book as per your belief. Once again, you claim something isn’t in there, then when it is proven it is, you try to dodge the issue and pick up the fight over something else.

Meanwhile everyone claims he is, he was charged with claiming it, never denied it when being held on trial, inferred it constantly, and blessed those who recognized it for themselves. All in Matthew, Mark and Luke since apparently John doesn’t count. Considering your reading abilities, it’s not surprising you would miss this information right in front of your face.

I love the people who argue they have read the Bible yet have zero understanding of it nor comprehension. I am far from a Bible scholar myself but even reading through it once would show why so many of your arguments here are simply uninformed.

Since you won’t even read an Internet article or a specific quote during a discussion, it’s obvious someone who dislikes the Bible this much is too lazy to actually read it. You’re just being dishonest at this point.

[thedickus]

That’s because clearly you take no time to read before spouting off your uninformed opinion. This is literally what I said.

Actually for the time the rights the Bible dictated for them was huge.

Not nowadays. You are literally screaming at clouds instead of actually discussing facts. Fact - women before the Mosaic Law had much less rights and protections. Bottom line.

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. If god gave two $hits about women's rights he would've actually given them rights in his book instead of continuing to refer to them as the property of their fathers or their husbands.

You don’t bother to read anything, that’s the problem. You ask for evidence, it’s given to you, and you won’t even take the time to actually review it. You have already been proven wrong several times yet just keep doubling down on what is wrong and ignoring any evidence presented to you.

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. I'm asking for where in the bible does god actually outlaw slavery. He fuking doesn't, he continues to tell his people that it's OK to own other human beings as property for the rest of their lives and even pass the slaves down to their children. I have zero desire to read some bull$hlt article that tries to make slavery sound like a business deal. You might as well give me a link to some of your white supremacy views as well. I won't read that crap either. I've not being proven wrong, I simply read from the fuking bible where god allows and endorses slavery and dumba$$es like you simply can't see the fact that it's true, that god does endorse and allow one human being to own another human being as property for the rest of their lives and beat them as long as they don't die within a couple of days. That's slavery you fuking moron, not a business contract, it's slavery.

Wrong. John 8:58. You also never answered the question - If you claimed Jesus obeyed all the laws, why did he break the sabbath? Not once, but several times.
So now you’re contradicting yourself. You said He never calls himself divine. Now you say He did but it doesn’t count because it’s only in one book as per your belief. Once again, you claim something isn’t in there, then when it is proven it is, you try to dodge the issue and pick up the fight over something else.

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. I've repeatedly said throughout this thread that Jesus never called himself divine. Whoever wrote the book of John made that crap up to represent the changing christology of the times. Jesus preached the old testament and to repent to god, Jesus NEVER preached salvation. Actual biblical historians agree on this fact.

Meanwhile everyone claims he is, he was charged with claiming it, never denied it when being held on trial, inferred it constantly, and blessed those who recognized it for themselves. All in Matthew, Mark and Luke since apparently John doesn’t count. Considering your reading abilities, it’s not surprising you would miss this information right in front of your face.

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. It depends on which gospel you read as to what Jesus claimed. You make the same mistake all other dumba$$ed theists do. You combine all of the gospels into one big gospel even though the four don't really agree on a lot of things. The earlier written gospel, Mark, never even mentions his birth.

I love the people who argue they have read the Bible yet have zero understanding of it nor comprehension. I am far from a Bible scholar myself but even reading through it once would show why so many of your arguments here are simply uninformed.

Since you won’t even read an Internet article or a specific quote during a discussion, it’s obvious someone who dislikes the Bible this much is too lazy to actually read it. You’re just being dishonest at this point.

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. I've been the only honest person on this thread. I have far more understanding of the bible and the history of it than you ever will. You've obviously started with a preconception that the bible is true and the stories in it are historical. To disprove that stupid book all you have to do is actually read it.

[BlackJack619]

No point in arguing about women’s rights with someone who thinks a dude can be a women.

[GrouchyUSMC]

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. If god gave two $hits about women's rights he would've actually given them rights in his book instead of continuing to refer to them as the property of their fathers or their husbands.

Imagine how ignorant you have to be to be fired up over a book written centuries ago in the East does not line up with your modern Western values. Meanwhile there are women living today, 2023, they don’t have even the same rights as women were granted in the Bible centuries ago. It just shows how shallow your understanding of what you claim to know is.

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. I'm asking for where in the bible does god actually outlaw slavery. He fuking doesn't, he continues to tell his people that it's OK to own other human beings as property for the rest of their lives and even pass the slaves down to their children. I have zero desire to read some bull$hlt article that tries to make slavery sound like a business deal.

I posted evidence of this several times. You fully admit you’re just too lazy to look at it yet keep demanding proof. This is a classic case of the logical fallacy of invincible ignorance. What rights did slaves have before the Bible?

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. It depends on which gospel you read as to what Jesus claimed. You make the same mistake all other dumba$$ed theists do. You combine all of the gospels into one big gospel even though the four don't really agree on a lot of things. The earlier written gospel, Mark, never even mentions his birth.

So which gospel does Jesus flat out deny being the Son of God?

Here's the bottom line you fuking moron. I've been the only honest person on this thread. I have far more understanding of the bible and the history of it than you ever will. You've obviously started with a preconception that the bible is true and the stories in it are historical. To disprove that stupid book all you have to do is actually read it.

You are completely ignorant and/or oblivious of the core elements of both the OT and the NT. You have no idea of historical context and the culture at the time. You have made several assumptions that have already been proven false. And you just flat out refuse to read anything that disagrees with both of your IQ points.

The closest you have ever probably come to reading a Bible was chewing on the covers. Stop while you’re ahead, you just embarrass yourself more and more by digging your hole.

[GrouchyUSMC]

No point in arguing about women’s rights with someone who thinks a dude can be a women.

Oh, one of those. Perhaps I should get triggered then because he assumed my racial identity.

[BlackJack619]

Yea he’s not really rational at all, ironically he argues like a women, he claims he “trust the science” but all of his arguments are based off of feelings definitely not science.

I tried finding common ground with him earlier ITT, but he fully admitted he is not interested in finding common ground,

So according to his own admission he is arguing like a women, he’s arguing just to argue.

[thedickus]

Oh, one of those. Perhaps I should get triggered then because he assumed my racial identity.

Black jack is a drug addicted homosexual and liar. He lies about being gay to his "wife" and he's lying about my stance on trans. I've never said anything about it. He's making assumptions and lies.

I'm not going to address each of your points yet again. I've addresses that crap throughout this thread and am not about to start revisiting everything again.

You have NOT posted any "proof" of your claims on slavery. You've just posted some bull$hit from yet another religious .org website that like you is simply presuppositional with their viewpoints on the bible. Actual historians disagree with your stance on biblical slavery. Go read an actual fuking book for a change. Your god allows it and worse yet even endorses it. The old testament slavery was slavery, not some white washed work agreement like christians that are either too proud to admit to or too stupid to see that their god commanded and still does his followers to commit atrocities against each other. When asked why did your god of the old testament allow and endorse slavery and why does it still seem to be endorsed in the new testament, a truthful I don't know why god would allow that would be a much better answer than the bull$hlt that your theology of work, christian apologist website tries to come up with.

Jesus never claimed to be divine. Actual biblical historians agree on this, they also agree that no one that wrote a single book of the new testament ever met or had any first hand knowledge of Jesus. Again, read a fuking book. You're like every other dumba$$ apologist on this thread. You have zero proof of anything to prove the bible is anything more than a bunch of made up stories, expect to keep quoting from the very book of made of stories in a feeble attempt to prove them true. This is circular logic and it doesn't work.

Here's the bottom fuking line on your loving caring god a$$h0le god. A god that allows a father to sell his daughter into slavery or allows the father of a raped daughter to take money for his daughter then make his daughter marry her rapist doesn't do anything for women's rights. He was fuking god. He's supposed to be in control and this is the best that he can do for women? Your god is evil and anyone who would follow the beliefs of such an evil should be considered too stupid to vote at least in America.

[BlackJack619]

Actually I am a new creation in Christ.

I have been born again.

[thedickus]

No point in arguing about women’s rights with someone who thinks a dude can be a women.

More lies Matty, you know I've never discussed trans. I'm actually pro you being a homosexual, you should stop living a lie. Be who your god created you to be.

Yea he’s not really rational at all, ironically he argues like a women, he claims he “trust the science” but all of his arguments are based off of feelings definitely not science.

I tried finding common ground with him earlier ITT, but he fully admitted he is not interested in finding common ground,

So according to his own admission he is arguing like a women, he’s arguing just to argue.

More fuking lies Matty, show me the proof that you have that god exists. When are you getting your Noble Prize? If you have the proof you're saying you have you're going to be a shoe in for the next Noble.

I've tried to find common ground with you, once again you're lying about that. Here it goes again Matty? Do you think that slavery is evil? I do. Do you think that a loving god would command his people to take other humans as slaves for life? I don't. Can we find common ground on this very simple concept?