This is yet another long post of just hand waving and attempted obfuscation. Just to understand what you're saying, are you comparing football trades to slave trade in which the person being sold is sold to a family as property to be inherited?

You're the person trying hard to obfuscate issues. i've pointed you to MANY examples of servants(or slaves as you seem to prefer) in the Bible. Their lives are a practical testimony of servants and the ways they were treated by God's people. The scripture is balanced and complete, not lobsided in emphasis like yours. You saw the big deal about buying and selling people.

Keep in mind the fact that those slaves in the Bible could be bought and sold

Now i showed you that our civil people today even buy and sell humans for entertainment. they even buy people for free. Now you have issues with people been inherited, if i pointed out analogies/similarities, you'll jump to yet another issue. i think you started with 'young virgins'.

One that may be beaten and when beaten, it's okay for them to die after one day? Are you being serious? I identified the sort of slavery I was referring to to avoid this sort of fallacy of ambiguity yet you wish to wallow in it.
Your reference to Elisha was that he was a good role model but you ignore the sort of person who would like to have children killed for mocking his baldness. This is a terrible sort of insecurity. So, would you like to be a "Biblical slave"?

Anyone could be beaten in the old testament, you didn't need to be a servant, and anyone might be killed as well, stop been mawkish.

Exo 21:20  And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Num 35:30  Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
Num 35:31  Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
Servants could not be treated poorly by God's people compared to the brutality of the heathen nations around them. If you wounded your servant, you'd lose him, i believe you also saw that in the Bible?
I referred Elisha as a servant who became GREAT. You say he's 'a sort of person who would like to have children killed'? That's all you really saw in the life of Elisha? Again, you're been sentimental, what, you'd have preferred they were 42 adults? Or what's your point about them been children? If Biblical slaves are Daniel, Esther, Elisha, Abraham's servant, the disciples, Joseph and co, oh, please count me in. No condition is permanent.
Colossians 4:1  Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
Deuteronomy 24:14  Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
Deu 23:15  Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
Deu 23:16  He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

i hope your eyes do not skip these above when you look for the Bible's 'sayings about servants'.

So, God has changed. He is no longer the sort of tribal barbaric God that he was? Yet you will also at the same time claim he doesn't change. What sort of mental gymnastics do you use to explain the fact that he used to command genocides but now only recommends things society as a whole decides is appropriate?

God has not changed, we've been through this before. All these your petulant accusations do not do not bring the tiniest stain on God or His people. i told you, God is in a relationship with the human race, as a relationship grows things may change but not necessarily the individual. i gave an illustration, of how a father may beat up his little kid, or how a mother may breast feed her baby. As time goes on, the mother may not breast feeding the child and the father not have to beat up the child. It's not exactly that they changed or 'repented/remorsed/regretted'. It's actually another phase of life. It's like sometimes we say "the sun is hot, or the sun has gone down, or it has reduced in intensity". In the real sense, the sun didn't go anywhere or reduce it's heat. the earth shifted, or some cloud covered. When Jesus came in the new testament, He came with power for us as humans, and to bring us into a richer and better relationship with God. It's going long so let me stop.

I'll give you three. Look up Denmark, Finland, Norway and their choice of support of human rights. You may wish to know that God consistently fails to support human rights.

Support of human rights. That's a scopeless statement, it boils down to what each person and country call human right. i'll scope it to include freedom, justice, and equality i guess.
Freedom- are there any prisoners in Denmark or everyone is free?
Justice- are there different courts in Finland where people can plead from one court to another? Or there's fairness all round? talk is cheap, even becoming cheaper in nigeria where i stay.
Equality- Do they have leaders or grades and hierarchy in Norway, or everyone is the same? Same salary, same class, same everything.
So God doesn't support 'human rights', you are a poor student of the Bible.

This is yet another attempt at trying to define a problem away. How is the case dismissed? What God ordered fits the above description. The fact that the word was unavailable or that there was no international law against it then does not make it right. Go back and ask your God why he ordered humans to kill other humans when he could have used one of his many acts to do that.

Did you notice in that quote i gave you that genocide became crime in 1951? If next year, the government says it's illegal for you to post on nl, would they charge/pick you for posting last week? it's common sense. It was in the past, and the people who even fought are dead and buried, they are not standing in your petty trial. Hundreds of years before the world thought of this, Jesus already showed the way. You're so late to the party.
Matthew 5:43  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
Matthew 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5:45  That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
God created all things, and can use anything. Always remember that.

Yet for some reason, you still cannot see that they cannot be compared in that manner? This is why we use the phrase "apples to oranges". Why do I have to also teach English Language in a discussion that uses the language? Look up the meaning of that expression here
Now you are simply being absurd. If I said that over a 24 hour period 3000 years ago on Australia, the earth rotated on its axis. Would that be a guess? Does it require faith to make such a statement?
The "in a sense" refers to the looking back in time. Please try and carefully read what I wrote.

Now your quote above is a classic example of "apples to oranges". The earth rotates on it's axis everyday, anyone can see it from a satellite, and 3000years ago is a safe timeframe. It might for instance, not be safe to say that the earth rotated on it's axis some few trillion years ago, according to you there was even no earth then. It's world-apart different from seeing one star 'seem to' annihilate ones in some couple of years, and then begin to build stories and castles on how the star formed so-so billion years ago from say silicon, and then was XYZm in diameter and became FGH some million years ago and etcs.

Image123:

You're the person trying hard to obfuscate issues. i've pointed you to MANY examples of servants(or slaves as you seem to prefer) in the Bible. Their lives are a practical testimony of servants and the ways they were treated by God's people. The scripture is balanced and complete, not lobsided in emphasis like yours. You saw the big deal about buying and selling people.

There you go with your fallacy of equivocation. Slave trade is quite different from trading football players. Testimony of how they were treated? Like being allowed to be severely beaten to the extent where they die a day later?

Image123:

Now i showed you that our civil people today even buy and sell humans for entertainment. they even buy people for free. Now you have issues with people been inherited, if i pointed out analogies/similarities, you'll jump to yet another issue. i think you started with 'young virgins'.

You're still equivocating. Please look up that word on wikipedia. Please point them out. Just place them in the appropriate context.

Image123:

Anyone could be beaten in the old testament, you didn't need to be a servant, and anyone might be killed as well, stop been mawkish.

Exo 21:20  And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Num 35:30  Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
Num 35:31  Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
Servants could not be treated poorly by God's people compared to the brutality of the heathen nations around them. If you wounded your servant, you'd lose him, i believe you also saw that in the Bible?
I referred Elisha as a servant who became GREAT. You say he's 'a sort of person who would like to have children killed'? That's all you really saw in the life of Elisha? Again, you're been sentimental, what, you'd have preferred they were 42 adults? Or what's your point about them been children?

The point is what sort of God kills 42 children for mocking some bald guy? Can you kill 42 children for mocking you? Can you order 42 children to be killed for mocking you? Why is it that you're unable to see such bad behaviour when it is done by God?

Image123:

If Biblical slaves are Daniel, Esther, Elisha, Abraham's servant, the disciples, Joseph and co, oh, please count me in. No condition is permanent.
Colossians 4:1  Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
Deuteronomy 24:14  Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
Deu 23:15  Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
Deu 23:16  He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

i hope your eyes do not skip these above when you look for the Bible's 'sayings about servants'.

I of course note how God's law shows how it is permissible to hold a man's family hostage to make him a slave as long as he lives.
I see you're still picking and choosing based on what 21^st century people have decided. You will notice that neither Jehovah nor Jesus abolished slavery as we have.

Image123:

God has not changed, we've been through this before. All these your petulant accusations do not do not bring the tiniest stain on God or His people. i told you, God is in a relationship with the human race, as a relationship grows things may change but not necessarily the individual. i gave an illustration, of how a father may beat up his little kid, or how a mother may bosom feed her baby. As time goes on, the mother may not bosom feeding the child and the father not have to beat up the child. It's not exactly that they changed or 'repented/remorsed/regretted'. It's actually another phase of life. It's like sometimes we say "the sun is hot, or the sun has gone down, or it has reduced in intensity". In the real sense, the sun didn't go anywhere or reduce it's heat. the earth shifted, or some cloud covered. When Jesus came in the new testament, He came with power for us as humans, and to bring us into a richer and better relationship with God. It's going long so let me stop.

Oh but they do stain the thoughts of the Christian God. How could he have been so cruel? So in other words, God used to command people to kill others when they switch religion now he doesn't do that? You will notice how the current morality of God tends to parallel the morality of the society in which he finds himself.

Image123:

Support of human rights. That's a scopeless statement, it boils down to what each person and country call human right. i'll scope it to include freedom, justice, and equality i guess.
Freedom- are there any prisoners in Denmark or everyone is free?
Justice- are there different courts in Finland where people can plead from one court to another? Or there's fairness all round? talk is cheap, even becoming cheaper in nigeria where i stay.
Equality- Do they have leaders or grades and hierarchy in Norway, or everyone is the same? Same salary, same class, same everything.
So God doesn't support 'human rights', you are a poor student of the Bible.

No. The statement has a scope. Human rights are not arbitrary unlike God's laws and commands which encouraged genocide. It seems you misunderstand what is meant by freedom, justice and equality with respect to human rights. Read up on it here. You will notice that they are generally better than what God came up with.

Image123:

Did you notice in that quote i gave you that genocide became crime in 1951? If next year, the government says it's illegal for you to post on nl, would they charge/pick you for posting last week? it's common sense. It was in the past, and the people who even fought are dead and buried, they are not standing in your petty trial. Hundreds of years before the world thought of this, Jesus already showed the way. You're so late to the party.
Matthew 5:43  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
Matthew 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5:45  That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
God created all things, and can use anything. Always remember that.

Have you heard of retroactive laws? Look it up here. They may be dead and buried but this does not mean that the person who ordered their genocide was a good person worthy of praise.

Image123:

Now your quote above is a classic example of "apples to oranges". The earth rotates on it's axis everyday, anyone can see it from a satellite, and 3000years ago is a safe timeframe. It might for instance, not be safe to say that the earth rotated on it's axis some few trillion years ago, according to you there was even no earth then. It's world-apart different from seeing one star 'seem to' annihilate ones in some couple of years, and then begin to build stories and castles on how the star formed so-so billion years ago from say silicon, and then was XYZm in diameter and became FGH some million years ago and etcs.

The problem here is that you still fail to realize that it is a similar process that makes the rotation and revolution of the earth consistent that makes star formation and annihilation consistent. They're all bound by the same physical laws.

@thehomer

Well, you thought wrong. Proof is different from evidence when it comes to science. How did I deny mathematics? Again, carefully read what I wrote. I don't think English is that difficult.

i thought wrong? Where's your definition for science? what's with this your semantics, what's your definition of proof, and of evidence, of course WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE. You denied maths when you said "Science doesn't do proofs because it relies on evidence. You get proofs in mathematics and logic." Mathematics is a science.

It seems you wish to simply lie here because you still did not cite any scientific literature. And the links you gave which you have said you do not need to read demonstrate that you are wrong. So you give links that contradict you yet you refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong? Why would you do that? Please present three of these scientists saying that humans evolved 12,000 to 10,000 years ago.

i'm not interested in links, you are. You state out these lies i'm accused of. The links do not contradict me. i  skimmed through one just now (the jamestown link). It says in one paragraph that "The period starting about 10,000 years ago is called the Holocene epoch. this is also known as the time of modern man." It's almost like i was the one that inserted it there! i don't need to present any scientists to you. Go and study geology or something.

So in other words, you may be wrong? Especially when it is not being backed by scientific reasoning? You have to realize that it's not only what you see that is true. There are other and better ways of discovering that something is true.

Are you soliloquizing here? sounds so much like what i should be saying to you. You have to realize that it's not only what you see that is true. There are other and better ways of discovering that something is true.

Look it up. I will not spoon feed you with such trivial information.

You were the one that said "Scientific theory doesn't mean what you think it means. ". So what does it mean, since it doesn't mean what i think it means, be kind thehomer.

Both of us have seen this so have many who have come before us and many others now.

i've not seen it, you're infringing on my rights, where is justice, are you going barbaric on me?

Of course. Like I said, you made it clear that you would still introduce this God even where he is not needed.

Introduce God? Not needed? God is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. He cannot be 'not needed'. The universe and life didn't start out of nothing. It is In the beginning GodGenesis 1v1. Before hydrogen, God. Before gravity, God. Before nebula, God. He is the Everlasting God.

How do you decide which part is metaphor and which isn't? Couldn't the genealogy of Jesus have been a metaphor?

By common sense, or by asking people like me who know Him more than you do.

The question was where did you see this information? I've checked and it's there so, it  probably did happen. Have you read about how that was suspected to have happened?

Now you believe, because thou hast seen, thou hast believed. Don't be a doubting Thomas.

Wow. This must be a very tough dance to perform. So the metaphor is actually the real thing? Again, how do you decide what is actually being spoken about? All it sounds like you're doing is that you're forcing the Bible to fit with what we actually currently know. Please avoid such gymnastics especially when we actually do know what clay seals are.
I notice how you tend to fill the post with a lot of noise when the facts clearly contradict your Bible.

They say you can take a horse to the stream but you can't force it to drink. i leave you to your illusions on this.

Where did I concede this? I only pointed out that you were simply lying about having read the link even after I pasted the relevant paragraph on this thread. So please do yourself a favour and look up the relevant information.

You conceded when you said "You have chosen to quote mine.". i was saying "You said we can observe stars forming and getting annihilated regularly through a telescope, i said no we cannot. The wiki link prove we cannot observe stars forming and getting annihilated regularly through a telescope. Have been highlighting that word all along, but it seemed you were more obssessed with your link than anything else.".

Are belief and trust evidence? (Did you notice that the word "evidence" does not appear and is not implied in that definition?) So if you believe and trust your banker, this is evidence of what?

This is evidence OF THINGS NOT SEEN. Is it really that difficult?

Actually, mathematics and logic are basically tools used in science. And yes proofs are for mathematics and logic. It seems you have a lot of learning to do. I'll advice you to get to it.

Mathematics is not just a tool in science, it is a MAJOR BRANCH of science.

You don't seem to get it. I said the album itself may be considered divine not necessarily that the person who performed it was divine or claimed to be divine. Even the Bible writers and translators are not considered to be divine. The album is quite popular. Most reviewers rate it 5 stars. Whether or not you know it is popular does not diminish the fact that it is the best selling album of all time.

No one claims the divinity of the album except you as far as i know. The 'writers of the Bible' claimed divine inspiration and most part took what was written to be scripture/divine/the word of God.

Because it is obviously not forgotten and is not insignificant.

If it was significant enough, you'd have a copy instead of the many copies of bible that you have. you'd read and quote it if it was significant. you'd be bold to say the name.

Yes it is according to you because that makes no sense. If God has done the healing, then what is the use of killing animals and playing with their blood?

no sense to you obviously, but a lot of sundry lessons for believers. If you sincerely wanted to know and needed to know, i'd tell you.

Of course. Then the No True Scotsman fallacy appears. I guess this means that you have the True Christianity. You need to realize that you cannot simply say that only people today are True Christians but not those bad people there. Of course he's always coming. Maybe he'll be here on May 25th. We'll see.

You're still taking your fallacy lessons, i see.  you fall right in the net the moment you think all that have faith are wrong, all that do religion are wrong and you right. I didn't say only people today are true christians. Where do you usually get these claims about me? So you got to shift Christ's coming to May 25th? i thought you had a thread for a earlier date? Are you shifting Judgement Day?

This is really sad. You now go for a circular argument? A book that is irrelevant is not in the Bible because the ones in the Bible are not irrelevant. This is very sad. I hope you realize that there are books before and after the Bible e.g the Torah and the Qur'an among others. Then the Catholic Bible with the books of Maccabees, Tobit etc. Then there are the others from which the Abrahamic religions draw their myths e.g the book of Enoch. Please educate yourself on the mythology and history of your favourite religion.

What is sad? that you feel powerless to do what i dared you to? Cheer up, don't be sad. there's joy unspeakable awaiting you in God's kingdom. i didn't say there are no other books. Heck, even my 'preacher' writes books. I've not said all books are wrong or something. i've said the Bible is the Word of god, and it's to be believed above any other. It's from there you've been asking questions, recall?

The point is to show that your choice is simply arbitrary.

The point was poorly delivered then. My choice has saved me from sin and from satan, and is leading me DAILY to eternal life with God.

What would you call someone who has no knowledge of good and evil? Do you think people like e.g children and mentally handicapped people can be described as naive?

you are coming home little by little. Children and mentally handicapped people may be described as naive. And children or mentally handicapped people don't maintain huge garden of Edenic grace, or have ability to replicate them elsewhere like Adam and Eve had. Even the world best brains have to come/combine together to achieve something near such today. Children don't know what to put in their mouth for food, or whether to live as partners to animals or not. Adam knew this. To help you, do you consider that Adam and Eve did not eat of the tree of life? Is it safe for you to say on the same lines of reason that they had no life, but were dead?

You're welcome.

Were you even following on this?

Sorry but what you've said above makes no sense because Nebuchadnezzar did not know about the Americas neither did he know about Australia. I doubt he knew about China back then. And of course, there were animals in those places. You're simply saying whatever you want your Bible to say but as we know, it's in English and is once again shown to be quite wrong. And as usual, when this is clear, you try to chuck in a lot of words to try to hide the fact that it is wrong and this fact is clear. If you think there were no people or animals in those places, then please take the time to learn something about world history.

It's becoming customary of you to assume things i did not say.  If people lived anywhere and Nebuchadnezzar knew of it, then he sure ruled over them. We say for instance that Nigeria was ruled by the British government. But decades after, some places in nigeria were discovered(i think in taraba?) where people do not even wear clothes. Most likely, the British never knew this tribe, they didn't even know of our crude oil. Do we now say o, the british didn't rule? Nebuchadnezzar was King. he ruled over every land that He knew of. the whole was given him by God. Nobody/nation could stand in his way.
Dan 2:37  Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
Dan 2:38  And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
It seems you've omitted the bolded in your interpretation of the passage. If Nebuchadnezzar knew there were people in Lagos, he'd rule them, it didn't matter their power, he conquered. And history tells us of the empire/kingdom that conquered and took over from the Babylon kingdom, and took over world domination. It's in agreement with this bible prophecy.

Actually, this would be clearly dishonest because slavery is mentioned in the Bible but abortion isn't.

i checked it in the kjv, i can't find it. Even the word slave, i found just once. I see 'servant' instead. Why do you avoid the word 'servant'?

Why has God chosen to hide himself from the rest of us?

If you can believe, you WILL see.

Image123:

@thehomeri thought wrong? Where's your definition for science? what's with this your semantics, what's your definition of proof, and of evidence, of course WHEN IT COMES TO SCIENCE. You denied maths when you said "Science doesn't do proofs because it relies on evidence. You get proofs in mathematics and logic." Mathematics is a science.

Why don't you look up the definitions of science, proof and evidence? There are online dictionaries available. How much proof shows Newton's theories were correct? How much evidence shows that the sum of two positive integers is greater than the operands?

Image123:

i'm not interested in links, you are. You state out these lies i'm accused of. The links do not contradict me. i  skimmed through one just now (the jamestown link). It says in one paragraph that "The period starting about 10,000 years ago is called the Holocene epoch. this is also known as the time of modern man." It's almost like i was the one that inserted it there! i don't need to present any scientists to you. Go and study geology or something.

I've stated the lies clearly. The phrase "this is also known as the time of modern man" does not mean the same thing as this was when humans evolved. If you cannot see this, then I'm sorry. And you're yet to present the scientists saying humans evolved 10,000 years ago. These are the sort of statements that you make that I point out as lies.

Image123:

Are you soliloquizing here? sounds so much like what i should be saying to you. You have to realize that it's not only what you see that is true. There are other and better ways of discovering that something is true.

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out to you that the fact that you did not see something does not mean it did not happen. And the better way of discovering what is true is by applying science and reasoning.

Image123:

You were the one that said "Scientific theory doesn't mean what you think it means. ". So what does it mean, since it doesn't mean what i think it means, be kind thehomer.

Type "scientific theory" in Wikipedia and read. You have access to the Internet.

Image123:

i've not seen it, you're infringing on my rights, where is justice, are you going barbaric on me?

You've not seen how the Bible is wrong? Then my advice to you is to study it properly and learn the appropriate scientific principles.

Image123:

Introduce God? Not needed? God is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. He cannot be 'not needed'. The universe and life didn't start out of nothing. It is In the beginning GodGenesis 1v1. Before hydrogen, God. Before gravity, God. Before nebula, God. He is the Everlasting God.

Of course since you define him into existence and slot him in wherever you like.

Image123:

By common sense, or by asking people like me who know Him more than you do.

Common sense? Is that why so many Christians disagree on the Bible?

Image123:

Now you believe, because thou hast seen, thou hast believed. Don't be a doubting Thomas.

Not because of seeing but because of evidence. You need to learn not to be too gullible.

Image123:

They say you can take a horse to the stream but you can't force it to drink. i leave you to your illusions on this.

Of course. I just hope you now properly understand what a clay seal is.

Image123:

You conceded when you said "You have chosen to quote mine.". i was saying "You said we can observe stars forming and getting annihilated regularly through a telescope, i said no we cannot. The wiki link prove we cannot observe stars forming and getting annihilated regularly through a telescope. Have been highlighting that word all along, but it seemed you were more obssessed with your link than anything else.".

How does the word change anything? Do you think regularly means every nanosecond? Please. It's clear you have seen your mistake. Simply learn from it by reading through that link again. Start from the section on telescope observation.

Image123:

This is evidence OF THINGS NOT SEEN. Is it really that difficult?

Belief is not evidence neither is trust. Read the definition not the example.

Image123:

Mathematics is not just a tool in science, it is a MAJOR BRANCH of science.

Branch in what sense? I hope you realize it is very different from chemistry and biology.

Image123:

No one claims the divinity of the album except you as far as i know. The 'writers of the Bible' claimed divine inspiration and most part took what was written to be scripture/divine/the word of God.

I'm simply using that as an analogy to point out to you that the fact that [b]you [/b]think your Bible is divine due to popularity does not make it so. So I'm glad you indicated that the writers "claimed" divine inspiration and others simply accepted it.

Image123:

If it was significant enough, you'd have a copy instead of the many copies of bible that you have. you'd read and quote it if it was significant. you'd be bold to say the name.

Oh I have digital copies of some of those books and the Bible. I don't often quote them to people whose only knowledge is the Bible.

Image123:

no sense to you obviously, but a lot of sundry lessons for believers. If you sincerely wanted to know and needed to know, i'd tell you.

Of course. And you've avoided telling me because you probably suspect that it makes little sense.

Image123:

You're still taking your fallacy lessons, i see.  you fall right in the net the moment you think all that have faith are wrong, all that do religion are wrong and you right. I didn't say only people today are true christians. Where do you usually get these claims about me? So you got to shift Christ's coming to May 25th? i thought you had a thread for a earlier date? Are you shifting Judgement Day?

When you say the Christians in Europe in the 14^th century were not true Christians, then this implies that you know who the true Christians are which of course leads to the the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Oh sorry my bad. It's still scheduled for may 21^st. I hope no one was mislead by that error.

Image123:

What is sad? that you feel powerless to do what i dared you to? Cheer up, don't be sad. there's joy unspeakable awaiting you in God's kingdom. i didn't say there are no other books. Heck, even my 'preacher' writes books. I've not said all books are wrong or something. i've said the Bible is the Word of god, and it's to be believed above any other. It's from there you've been asking questions, recall?

And here, you go with the fallacy of equivocation on the word "book". You really need to start avoiding committing fallacies. The books I'm talking about are those that are in some Bibles and others that were referred to by people in the Bible. And of course there are books held as sacred by other religious groups.

Image123:

The point was poorly delivered then. My choice has saved me from sin and from satan, and is leading me DAILY to eternal life with God.

So is it the Bible that teaches you not to enslave other people?

Image123:

you are coming home little by little. Children and mentally handicapped people may be described as naive. And children or mentally handicapped people don't maintain huge garden of Edenic grace, or have ability to replicate them elsewhere like Adam and Eve had. Even the world best brains have to come/combine together to achieve something near such today. Children don't know what to put in their mouth for food, or whether to live as partners to animals or not. Adam knew this. To help you, do you consider that Adam and Eve did not eat of the tree of life? Is it safe for you to say on the same lines of reason that they had no life, but were dead?

Did Adam know the difference between right and wrong? That is the core question used in deciding culpability for a crime. Try not to evade the core question again.

Image123:

Were you even following on this?It's becoming customary of you to assume things i did not say.  If people lived anywhere and Nebuchadnezzar knew of it, then he sure ruled over them. We say for instance that Nigeria was ruled by the British government. But decades after, some places in nigeria were discovered(i think in taraba?) where people do not even wear clothes. Most likely, the British never knew this tribe, they didn't even know of our crude oil. Do we now say o, the british didn't rule? Nebuchadnezzar was King. he ruled over every land that He knew of. the whole was given him by God. Nobody/nation could stand in his way.
Dan 2:37  Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
Dan 2:38  And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
It seems you've omitted the bolded in your interpretation of the passage. If Nebuchadnezzar knew there were people in Lagos, he'd rule them, it didn't matter their power, he conquered. And history tells us of the empire/kingdom that conquered and took over from the Babylon kingdom, and took over world domination. It's in agreement with this bible prophecy.

This of course makes no sense. How could he have ruled over people that he could not reach? Note what your Bible said. It said where there were people or animals, he ruled. But it is obvious that he could not have ruled Australia, North America or South America which had people and animals. Therefore, your Bible is again wrong in saying he ruled over the whole world.

Image123:

i checked it in the kjv, i can't find it. Even the word slave, i found just once. I see 'servant' instead. Why do you avoid the word 'servant'?

Look closely. I've given you the definition of slave I'm using.

Image123:

If you can believe, you WILL see.

And this again is the problem with religious beliefs. Do you have to believe the sun to see it?

You're still equivocating. Please look up that word on wikipedia. Please point them out. Just place them in the appropriate context.

WHy should i point them out? i just showed you that we still buy and sell people, you believe it's no more buying and selling, but when you talked of buying people like cars, it was in the same context to you. now you're shocked that children can inherit their parent's workers. Doesn't this happen all the time? If a parent owned a company having workers/servants, and his child takes over as CEO. Oh now he's CEO, not child so i must be equivocating. Don't people inherit businesses and buy businesses with their workers? Don't new coaches inherit club players.? Do the player contracts change cos there's a new coach? These things happen in one form or the other, but because you have a bias against scripture, even if it said plus, you must say minus right, so you can be rational?

The point is what sort of God kills 42 children for mocking some bald guy? Can you kill 42 children for mocking you? Can you order 42 children to be killed for mocking you? Why is it that you're unable to see such bad behaviour when it is done by God?

Wrong point, you brought up. The point should be what sort of children should unite, more than 42 children unitedly mocking an elder? This is actually what they were saying, to be clear "Get out of here, baldy". If i were God yes i can and verily would, because i would be their Creator and Judge, omniscient and within every right to do away with useless set of people who have nothing important to offer to the world, and defend an Elisha who demonstrated obedience, loyalty, love and submission to his master, and who would still go on to deliver many, even NATIONS later in life.

I of course note how God's law shows how it is permissible to hold a man's family hostage to make him a slave as long as he lives.
I see you're still picking and choosing based on what 21st century people have decided. You will notice that neither Jehovah nor Jesus abolished slavery as we have.

You won't go far in life if those are the only things you note or tend to observe. You're the one doing the pick and choose. i accept God's Word, all of it and i understand it(at least far better than you, not a boast but a fact) enough to know the covenant/testament under which i live.

Oh but they do stain the thoughts of the Christian God. How could he have been so cruel? So in other words, God used to command people to kill others when they switch religion now he doesn't do that? You will notice how the current morality of God tends to parallel the morality of the society in which he finds himself.

Of you jump to the next new question with nothing to say on what i've posted. god doesn't have changing morality, He's the same yesterday, today and forever. Would i still need to say this? He's always a God of love, righteousness, justice and judgement.   If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: . It's been God's standard all along, only that man hardly had power to do or think that until Christ Jesus came and gave the power and grace. Now it's thinkable, and you believe it's the 'morality of the society'.

No. The statement has a scope. Human rights are not arbitrary unlike God's laws and commands which encouraged genocide. It seems you misunderstand what is meant by freedom, justice and equality with respect to human rights. Read up on it here. You will notice that they are generally better than what God came up with.

you must be dreaming here? generally better? these are unachieved dreams of justice, freedom and equality. they are not in the realities of any countries. Like i said they are scopeless, just like the long link you referred. i actually have the supposed 26  or so articles of the declaration of the human rights so thanks but no thanks for your long link. You feel free to send long endless links but see it odd for me to post answers longer than your questions, or to quote other humans who you do not agree with. Where's fairness and equality, where's freedom and all these generally better things in you?

Have you heard of retroactive laws? Look it up here. They may be dead and buried but this does not mean that the person who ordered their genocide was a good person worthy of praise.

so it's now 'retroactive law'? Anyway you twist and turn, the FACT remains that it can't be genocide if it wasn't murder, and can't be murder if it wasn't a crime, and can't be a crime if it wasn't illegal, and can't be illegal if it was done by God. Meditate on that.

The problem here is that you still fail to realize that it is a similar process that makes the rotation and revolution of the earth consistent that makes star formation and annihilation consistent. They're all bound by the same physical laws.

And all physical laws are bound by God's laws, always remember that.

Why don't you look up the definitions of science, proof and evidence? There are online dictionaries available. How much proof shows Newton's theories were correct? How much evidence shows that the sum of two positive integers is greater than the operands?

You would not define it as i expected because you'd be classically shooting yourself in the head. i'll help you, and not injure you in the process.

sci·ence [s ənss]
(plural sci·ences)
noun
1.  study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment (often used before a noun)
2.  branch of science: a particular area of study or knowledge of the physical world
the life sciences

3.  systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject
the behavioral sciences

4.  something studied or performed methodically: an activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method
the science of dressing for success

5.  knowledge gained from science: the knowledge gained by the study of the physical world



proof [proof]
noun (plural proofs)
1.  conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something
2.  test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true
3.  state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved
4.  law trial evidence: evidence presented in a trial for consideration by the court



ev·i·dence [évvid'nss]
noun
1.  sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion
There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet.

2.  proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime
The police have no evidence.

3.  statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry

Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Hope you noticed how science is said to be of the physical? we keep telling you that spiritual things are not physical things and cannot be subject to the exact same methods and tests. the dictionary also says proof is evidence, don't know where your esoteric views on common issues come from.

I've stated the lies clearly. The phrase "this is also known as the time of modern man" does not mean the same thing as this was when humans evolved. If you cannot see this, then I'm sorry. And you're yet to present the scientists saying humans evolved 10,000 years ago. These are the sort of statements that you make that I point out as lies.

Go and sit down somewhere, and maybe study. this is not the career section or education section. It's not my duty to teach you the geologic time scale, if you can't competently make your research, then be mute. now i've clearly shown you from just a sentence in all the links i sent you, it's now for you to twist my words. i didn't say  "this was when humans evolved". I recall saying "when 'modern humans evolved'. " Punctuation marks have meanings, and influence meanings, and how 'modern' is lost in your misquote is misleading.
BTW, the point has already been made, except maybe you're just looking forward to scoring cheap point. the point of 10,000 or no 10,000 if you recall was that humans(humanity) were far younger than any star and can only measure with hypothesis and huge guesses and projections, the age and formation of stars.

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out to you that the fact that you did not see something does not mean it did not happen. And the better way of discovering what is true is by applying science and reasoning.

Excellent stuff, science and reasoning are better ways to discover the truths of the unseen. Faith is the BEST way. It's actually the evidence of things not seen(Hebrews 11v1).

Type "scientific theory" in Wikipedia and read. You have access to the Internet.

okay then, what do i think it means?

You've not seen how the Bible is wrong? Then my advice to you is to study it properly and learn the appropriate scientific principles.

Some things are just senior to, bigger than science. the Bible is one.

Of course since you define him into existence and slot him in wherever you like. Common sense? Is that why so many Christians disagree on the Bible?

No human being is created the same as the other, have you heard of strength in diversity?   It's reason to expect diversity, and it's fact to see that we can actually unite and harmonize as humans? God created all things this way.

Not because of seeing but because of evidence. You need to learn not to be too gullible.

You need to learn the value of TRUST.

Of course. I just hope you now properly understand what a clay seal is.

i didn't show that i didn't. you're the one showing that you do not understand the words 'turned', 'swaddling', 'band' and 'circle' once you see them in the Bible. And while you're at it, understand that a 'clay seal' is really different from 'clay to the seal'.

Belief is not evidence neither is trust. Read the definition not the example.

i thought you maintained that it wasn't in the link? Faith is defined in the Bible and used by Bible believers, get used to it.
Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Branch in what sense? I hope you realize it is very different from chemistry and biology.

Major branches of science are Mathematical sciences, Earth sciences, physical sciences, Life sciences, Social sciences and arguably Engineering/technology. i'm not going to teach you this, if you don't agree goodluck.

I'm simply using that as an analogy to point out to you that the fact that you think your Bible is divine due to popularity does not make it so. So I'm glad you indicated that the writers "claimed" divine inspiration and others simply accepted it.

How about others found their claims to be true and truth.

Oh I have digital copies of some of those books and the Bible. I don't often quote them to people whose only knowledge is the Bible.

names please.

Of course. And you've avoided telling me because you probably suspect that it makes little sense.

You must love hypotheses, assumptions and postulations.

When you say the Christians in Europe in the 14th century were not true Christians, then this implies that you know who the true Christians are which of course leads to the the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Oh sorry my bad. It's still scheduled for may 21st. I hope no one was mislead by that error.

Why do i not remember saying the bolded? Because you are lying again. True christians obey the word of God, anyone who disobeys God is not a child of God, the Bible said that not me. Don't you have criteria for separating science from pubtalk? is that also the no true scotman fallacy?
1John 3:10  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

And here, you go with the fallacy of equivocation on the word "book". You really need to start avoiding committing fallacies. The books I'm talking about are those that are in some Bibles and others that were referred to by people in the Bible. And of course there are books held as sacred by other religious groups.

Any tom or harry group can put something in it's Bible. some add contents and preface, some references, some dictionaries, some add concordance, some add their pastor's notes, and some add books. the books that are constant and cannot be removed so flimsily are the BIBLE. Books may be referred to in the Bible, but they are not the Bible.

So is it the Bible that teaches you not to enslave other people?

Oui.

Did Adam know the difference between right and wrong? That is the core question used in deciding culpability for a crime. Try not to evade the core question again.

Yes

This of course makes no sense. How could he have ruled over people that he could not reach? Note what your Bible said. It said where there were people or animals, he ruled. But it is obvious that he could not have ruled Australia, North America or South America which had people and animals. Therefore, your Bible is again wrong in saying he ruled over the whole world.

While i've explained this to you before, i still await your proof that he could not have ruled Australia, North America or South America.

Look closely. I've given you the definition of slave I'm using.

And why do you avoid the word 'servant'?

And this again is the problem with religious beliefs. Do you have to believe the sun to see it?

The sun is not spiritual or a spirit. John 4:24  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Image123:

WHy should i point them out? i just showed you that we still buy and sell people, you believe it's no more buying and selling, but when you talked of buying people like cars, it was in the same context to you. now you're shocked that children can inherit their parent's workers. Doesn't this happen all the time? If a parent owned a company having workers/servants, and his child takes over as CEO. Oh now he's CEO, not child so i must be equivocating. Don't people inherit businesses and buy businesses with their workers? Don't new coaches inherit club players.? Do the player contracts change cos there's a new coach? These things happen in one form or the other, but because you have a bias against scripture, even if it said plus, you must say minus right, so you can be rational?

Wow. Just wow. Are you really unable to tell the difference between slaves and football players? Do you really think that CEOs own their workers? It is really amazing that you think this way. I've really tried to lead you out of your fallacy yet you choose to play around in it.

Image123:

Wrong point, you brought up. The point should be what sort of children should unite, more than 42 children unitedly mocking an elder? This is actually what they were saying, to be clear "Get out of here, baldy". If i were God yes i can and verily would, because i would be their Creator and Judge, omniscient and within every right to do away with useless set of people who have nothing important to offer to the world, and defend an Elisha who demonstrated obedience, loyalty, love and submission to his master, and who would still go on to deliver many, even NATIONS later in life.

I'm sorry but this indicates that you are a moral monster. You have simply said that if you had the power, you would go out and murder children for making fun of an old man. I hope that if/when you have children, you would look at them and ask yourself if this is an appropriate punishment for any thing that they do.

Image123:

You won't go far in life if those are the only things you note or tend to observe. You're the one doing the pick and choose. i accept God's Word, all of it and i understand it(at least far better than you, not a boast but a fact) enough to know the covenant/testament under which i live.

Those are critical messages in the Bible or are you claiming that they are not there? Why would a good, just and moral God allow such atrocities?

Image123:

Of you jump to the next new question with nothing to say on what i've posted. god doesn't have changing morality, He's the same yesterday, today and forever. Would i still need to say this? He's always a God of love, righteousness, justice and judgement.   If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: . It's been God's standard all along, only that man hardly had power to do or think that until Christ Jesus came and gave the power and grace. Now it's thinkable, and you believe it's the 'morality of the society'.

Obviously he's changed because we don't see the Israelites giving the Amalekites bread to eat instead they go on to happily murder them under this God's command. Do you still not see the difference between one person ordering the slaughter of a group of people and an instruction to give food to hungry people? If one person used to do one then later did the other, would you not consider that a change in morality?

Image123:

you must be dreaming here? generally better? these are unachieved dreams of justice, freedom and equality. they are not in the realities of any countries. Like i said they are scopeless, just like the long link you referred. i actually have the supposed 26  or so articles of the declaration of the human rights so thanks but no thanks for your long link. You feel free to send long endless links but see it odd for me to post answers longer than your questions, or to quote other humans who you do not agree with. Where's fairness and equality, where's freedom and all these generally better things in you?

Those declarations of human rights are far better than what God said as we can see. I have to send you some of those links because you often appear to be poorly informed and it would derail the thread too much to start explaining them to you.

Image123:

so it's now 'retroactive law'? Anyway you twist and turn, the FACT remains that it can't be genocide if it wasn't murder, and can't be murder if it wasn't a crime, and can't be a crime if it wasn't illegal, and can't be illegal if it was done by God. Meditate on that.

Have you not heard of retroactive laws? This is something else you need to look up.
And this is your response to the age old Euthyphro's dilemma. This is a terrible response. So if God goes out and tortures then kills 500 children or orders you to do the same, you will do it. This is the sort of abhorrent morality that really saddens me.

Image123:

And all physical laws are bound by God's laws, always remember that.

Yet again, you simply stick your God anywhere you like.

Image123:

You would not define it as i expected because you'd be classically shooting yourself in the head. i'll help you, and not injure you in the process.

What definition are you using? You will notice that I would usually present you with the definition I'll be applying to reduce errors.

Image123:

Hope you noticed how science is said to be of the physical? we keep telling you that spiritual things are not physical things and cannot be subject to the exact same methods and tests. the dictionary also says proof is evidence, don't know where your esoteric views on common issues come from.

I advice you to get a better dictionary.

Image123:

Go and sit down somewhere, and maybe study. this is not the career section or education section. It's not my duty to teach you the geologic time scale, if you can't competently make your research, then be mute. now i've clearly shown you from just a sentence in all the links i sent you, it's now for you to twist my words. i didn't say  "this was when humans evolved". I recall saying "when 'modern humans evolved'. " Punctuation marks have meanings, and influence meanings, and how 'modern' is lost in your misquote is misleading.
BTW, the point has already been made, except maybe you're just looking forward to scoring cheap point. the point of 10,000 or no 10,000 if you recall was that humans(humanity) were far younger than any star and can only measure with hypothesis and huge guesses and projections, the age and formation of stars.

You're still failing to do the things you were supposed to do. You were supposed to present the scientists saying this, instead you presented a bunch of pages of which only one of them seemed to show what you wanted. The others directly contradicted you. Now tell me, what is the difference between 'modern man' and 'non-modern man'?
I already told you that how we arrive at the age and formation of stars is scientific. Stars actually age by regular natural processes. This is the same reason why we are able to predict eclipses and tell the dates of past eclipses whether or not humans were present.

Image123:

Excellent stuff, science and reasoning are better ways to discover the truths of the unseen. Faith is the BEST way. It's actually the evidence of things not seen(Hebrews 11v1).

Faith is nothing but a terrible idea. It is based on faith that we have so many Christian sects and sub-groups. Which one of them is right?

Image123:

okay then, what do i think it means?

Go back and read what you wrote then compare. The fact that it is a theory is not a bad thing.

Image123:

Some things are just senior to, bigger than science. the Bible is one.

It's sad that you think that.

Image123:

No human being is created the same as the other, have you heard of strength in diversity?   It's reason to expect diversity, and it's fact to see that we can actually unite and harmonize as humans? God created all things this way.

So your God is the author of confusion? Have you really read your Bible or do you not understand the meaning of what you said?

Image123:

You need to learn the value of TRUST.

Due to the high value I place on trust, I do not throw it about willy nilly.

Image123:

i didn't show that i didn't. you're the one showing that you do not understand the words 'turned', 'swaddling', 'band' and 'circle' once you see them in the Bible. And while you're at it, understand that a 'clay seal' is really different from 'clay to the seal'.

Of course. Keep playing with words. Force your Bible to fit what we now know via science.

Image123:

i thought you maintained that it wasn't in the link? Faith is defined in the Bible and used by Bible believers, get used to it.
Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I don't understand the difficulty you're having. Go back and read the definition not the example, the definition. They're quite different you know.

Image123:

Major branches of science are Mathematical sciences, Earth sciences, physical sciences, Life sciences, Social sciences and arguably Engineering/technology. i'm not going to teach you this, if you don't agree goodluck.

You still seem to be unable to grasp the fundamental difference being that unlike the various fields you mentioned, mathematics does not have any experimental or aspects to it.

Image123:

How about others found their claims to be true and truth.

Some were lying, others claim this for monetary gains, yet others may simply wish to go with the crowd then there's the group that are simply deluded and many other groups for other poor reasons.

Image123:

names please.

There's the Code of Hammurabi, the Analects of Confucious, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Five Rings and many many more.

Image123:

You must love hypotheses, assumptions and postulations.

You're free to clarify if you can.

Image123:

Why do i not remember saying the bolded? Because you are lying again. True christians obey the word of God, anyone who disobeys God is not a child of God, the Bible said that not me. Don't you have criteria for separating science from pubtalk? is that also the no true scotman fallacy?
1John 3:10  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

I wonder if you're being disingenuous here or if you truly do not know the implications of what you say. Please tell me, do you think the 14^th century Catholics were Christians?

Image123:

Any tom or harry group can put something in it's Bible. some add contents and preface, some references, some dictionaries, some add concordance, some add their pastor's notes, and some add books. the books that are constant and cannot be removed so flimsily are the BIBLE. Books may be referred to in the Bible, but they are not the Bible.

It seems you still wish to equivocate on books by talking about references etc when I've already clearly indicated what I meant.
How about the New Testament only books?
Go ahead with your circular reasoning.

Image123:

Oui.

Then you're not being honest because there are instructions there on how to acquire a slave, how to keep one and how to treat one.

Image123:

Yes

If he did, then why was that tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Image123:

While i've explained this to you before, i still await your proof that he could not have ruled Australia, North America or South America.

He couldn't have done that because he did not even know of their existence while we do know that people lived there before during and after his reign.

Image123:

And why do you avoid the word 'servant'?

I'm not avoiding it. I simply presented you with what I was saying. If you [/b]wish to talk about servants, be my guest.

Image123:

The sun is not spiritual or a spirit. John 4:24  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him [b]must worship him in spirit and in truth.

With the main problem being that there are no spirits. If he were serious, then he would not need faith or miracles to let himself be known.

Wow. Just wow. Are you really unable to tell the difference between slaves and football players? Do you really think that CEOs own their workers? It is really amazing that you think this way. I've really tried to lead you out of your fallacy yet you choose to play around in it.

your perspective is really failing you. You tried to sell as wrong the concept of buying and selling people, and then later the practice of children 'inheriting workers from their parents. While i'm not rooting for or against it, i simply showed you that the concepts were still common place and much welcomed by the society. A new branch manager takes over, a new company acquires another, and all the workers are thrown into despair and hope at once thinking they might all be replaced/retrenched. the new head doesn't cause any 'major shakeup' and we're all appluading the dividends of civilisation and economic stabilty, but once that concept is seen in the scriptures, it's terrible behaviour from the baric god. you need a new vision really.

I'm sorry but this indicates that you are a moral monster. You have simply said that if you had the power, you would go out and murder children for making fun of an old man. I hope that if/when you have children, you would look at them and ask yourself if this is an appropriate punishment for any thing that they do.

Oh, you're all soppy already. God is not a man, mr, not a man. Pretty sure that the "If i were God" part failed to register in your comprehension.

Those are critical messages in the Bible or are you claiming that they are not there? Why would a good, just and moral God allow such atrocities?

Quite dishonest of you as usual, or at best sheer ignorance from you not to know the 'critical messages' in the Bible, and not to be aware of the different covenants in operation.

Obviously he's changed because we don't see the Israelites giving the Amalekites bread to eat instead they go on to happily murder them under this God's command. Do you still not see the difference between one person ordering the slaughter of a group of people and an instruction to give food to hungry people? If one person used to do one then later did the other, would you not consider that a change in morality?

Any reader of the Bible knows that the conquest of Canaan was not the modus operandi of the Israelites, and that they were given a law/laws with which to live. Go and read your Bible from beginning to end to perhaps have a better grasp of issues. The Canaanites were enemies of God, not personal enemies of Israel, and they were under judgement by God. Why do you consistently fail to learn, these things are plainly written in Scriptures.

Those declarations of human rights are far better than what God said as we can see. I have to send you some of those links because you often appear to be poorly informed and it would derail the thread too much to start explaining them to you.

Nonsense, i doubt you even know them. There's nothing of value there that was not already preached in God's Word.
BTW, i hope Article 11 of your revered rights shuts you up. It says "No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."

Have you not heard of retroactive laws? This is something else you need to look up.
And this is your response to the age old Euthyphro's dilemma. This is a terrible response. So if God goes out and tortures then kills 500 children or orders you to do the same, you will do it. This is the sort of abhorrent morality that really saddens me.

Article 11 mr. Plus this obscure law is prohibited in most of the countries, didn't you read on it? You really need to be reminded that we live in the new covenant/testament period, and that we all belong to God. Do i read those rights again?

Yet again, you simply stick your God anywhere you like.

He was already there before. He's everywhere don't you know? What my friend thehomer is the source of life. Don't link me please, just your answer plain/simple.

What  definition are you using? You will notice that I would usually present you with the definition I'll be applying to reduce errors.

i asked you to define the words 'science', 'proof' and 'evidence' seeing you maintained that they were different from one another. Now i gave you definition that showed otherwise and gave the source, still you're asking 'what definition' i'm using?

I advice you to get a better dictionary.

i don't need a cult dictionary to define words in a preconceived and forced thinking. All the common dictionaries would give the same result of what i quoted.

You're still failing to do the things you were supposed to do. You were supposed to present the scientists saying this, instead you presented a bunch of pages of which only one of them seemed to show what you wanted. The others directly contradicted you. Now tell me, what is the difference between 'modern man' and 'non-modern man'?

You asked for a link and i gave you a google link. It's up to you to look for what you need to look for in it. So now it's only one showing what i said? i thought you initially said they didn't. Read well, you may yet learn.

I already told you that how we arrive at the age and formation of stars is scientific. Stars actually age by regular natural processes. This is the same reason why we are able to predict eclipses and tell the dates of past eclipses whether or not humans were present.

Age and formation of the stars? Are you really referring to those suppositions, probabilities and hypotheses?

Faith is nothing but a terrible idea. It is based on faith that we have so many Christian sects and sub-groups. Which one of them is right?

Differing sects and groups abound in all sphere of life. Differences are caused by unequal knowledge or understanding, not faith.

Go back and read what you wrote then compare. The fact that it is a theory is not a bad thing.

the·o·ry [th əree, three]
(plural the·o·ries)
noun
1.  rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice

Many coaches have a good grasp of the theory of football but can't motivate players.

2.  speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So your God is the author of confusion? Have you really read your Bible or do you not understand the meaning of what you said?

But you know that the Bible says the opposite of your question. What's confusion in humans not been the same? We're created to be united in our diversities.

Of course. Keep playing with words. Force your Bible to fit what we now know via science.

Those were always in that Bible passage, i didn't force them there. You've seen it for yourself.

I don't understand the difficulty you're having. Go back and read the definition not the example, the definition. They're quite different you know.

You said "Please can you point me to any English Language dictionary that supports any of these proposals of yours?". Now it's there, you want it not as the example. You need to be serious. And if you're really serious, you'll want to know more what the christians call faith, or what God calls faith. Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

You still seem to be unable to grasp the fundamental difference being that unlike the various fields you mentioned, mathematics does not have any experimental or aspects to it.

i believe you now see that maths is an integral science, and actually used to solve so many scientific problems.

Some were lying, others claim this for monetary gains, yet others may simply wish to go with the crowd then there's the group that are simply deluded and many other groups for other poor reasons.

How about the group that found their claims to be true and truth?

There's the Code of Hammurabi, the Analects of Confucious, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Five Rings and many many more.

Are you lost in the discuss or something? what's this, code of what? Let me refresh you a little. i was talking about the divinity of the Scriptures, and among other things like its popularity and answers to life's problem, how it was amazing ling preserved despite specific hauntings and persecutions., and we went like

---

thehomer: Preservation? Actually, there are books older than the Bible available. Are they divine too?
Image123: Do you have them with you?
thehomer: No I don't but you can look them up.
Image123: Where?
thehomer: Simply google world's oldest books. I'll no longer be spoon feeding you unless it's absolutely necessary.
Image123: Oh so i can only find it on google. So much for divine comparisons.
thehomer: It's so divine that the God behind it allowed just one copy not like some Gods who allow forgeries and adulteration of their works.
Image123: Why don't you honestly accept that it's a much forgotten insignificant book?
thehomer: Because it is obviously not forgotten and is not insignificant.
Image123: If it was significant enough, you'd have a copy instead of the many copies of bible that you have. you'd read and quote it if it was significant. you'd be bold to say the name.
thehomer: Oh I have digital copies of some of those books and the Bible. I don't often quote them to people whose only knowledge is the Bible.
Image123: names please.
thehomer: There's the Code of Hammurabi, the Analects of Confucious, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Five Rings and many many more.

---

Are these the divine books older than the Bible, and that you don't have, but later miraculously have digital copies of? Disappointing really. Well the point has been made that it's only the Bible that shows us a sure way of salvation, all others either do not show, or are skeptical in themselves.

You're free to clarify if you can.

And i said i presently wasn't interested in clarifying,remember? i.e on spirit and soul in case you don't.

I wonder if you're being disingenuous here or if you truly do not know the implications of what you say. Please tell me, do you think the 14th century Catholics were Christians?

Your question is too general, and i'm not their judge. But specifically, any one who disobeys the word of God in any century or generation, including the present, is not a christian.
1John 3:10  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

It seems you still wish to equivocate on books by talking about references etc when I've already clearly indicated what I meant.
How about the New Testament only books?
Go ahead with your circular reasoning.

You're the one being equivocal. You perfectly know the Bible i've been referring to. Even google and wiki know. You're the one who's been labouring to bring in what's not.

Then you're not being honest because there are instructions there on how to acquire a slave, how to keep one and how to treat one.

And where are those 'instructions' located again?

If he did, then why was that tree called the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

You answer, why was that other tree called the tree of life, even though Adam was alive? give a try atleast?

He couldn't have done that because he did not even know of their existence while we do know that people lived there before during and after his reign.

PROOF?

I'm not avoiding it. I simply presented you with what I was saying. If you wish to talk about servants, be my guest.

What you were saying is not in the Bible. 'Slavery' is not the word used in the Bible. It's 'servants'. You've been avoiding that word like fire, going for slavery instead.

With the main problem being that there are no spirits. If he were serious, then he would not need faith or miracles to let himself be known.

God doesn't 'need' faith. It's man that needs faith. If you were serious about knowing God, you'd have faith seeing that's the way. You think there are no spirits? so you don't know you have a spirit? maybe i might have to talk about spirits afterall? Only the believer the pure in heart that can see God, every other person remains a blind bat blinded by the devil. You can actually belief, you have faith. It's like a radio/tv station and a radio/tv antenna. The radio/tv station might be broadcasting all day 24-7 i.e God. It's up to every individual to get their radio/tv antenna working and tuned to receive. If you don't have or tune the antenna, you may never receive signal. If you can believe thehomer, you'll see.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing man that he didnt exist." Satan is not a conspiracy, he is as real as the eyes or eye on your face. True knowledge is knowing God and fearing him.

Image123:

your perspective is really failing you. You tried to sell as wrong the concept of buying and selling people, and then later the practice of children 'inheriting workers from their parents. While i'm not rooting for or against it, i simply showed you that the concepts were still common place and much welcomed by the society. A new branch manager takes over, a new company acquires another, and all the workers are thrown into despair and hope at once thinking they might all be replaced/retrenched. the new head doesn't cause any 'major shakeup' and we're all appluading the dividends of civilisation and economic stabilty, but once that concept is seen in the scriptures, it's terrible behaviour from the baric god. you need a new vision really.

This is starting to bore me. If you really cannot see that owning people as slaves is different from being a football player or being an employee then your ignorance is too deep for me to breach or you simply wish to continue in your fallacy.

Image123:

Oh, you're all soppy already. God is not a man, mr, not a man. Pretty sure that the "If i were God" part failed to register in your comprehension.

It registered very well because the picture you paint makes you worse than even Kim Jong Il. Even he won't murder his children or allow them to be murdered willy nilly.

Image123:

Quite dishonest of you as usual, or at best sheer ignorance from you not to know the 'critical messages' in the Bible, and not to be aware of the different covenants in operation.

Covenants shmovenants. Slavery is a very important issue which was pretty much supported by both your Gods.

Image123:

Any reader of the Bible knows that the conquest of Canaan was not the modus operandi of the Israelites, and that they were given a law/laws with which to live. Go and read your Bible from beginning to end to perhaps have a better grasp of issues. The Canaanites were enemies of God, not personal enemies of Israel, and they were under judgement by God. Why do you consistently fail to learn, these things are plainly written in Scriptures.

Rubbish. A God that acts that way is not worthy of being considered a God. You can see this page for a dissection of such a view made by a well known apologist.

Image123:

Nonsense, i doubt you even know them. There's nothing of value there that was not already preached in God's Word.
BTW, i hope Article 11 of your revered rights shuts you up. It says "No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."

Aww I'm sorry your God didn't have the declaration of human rights to make it criminal for him to have his acts of genocide.
Again, you still fail to see something that is obviously wrong which humans have identified but your God couldn't.

Image123:

Article 11 mr. Plus this obscure law is prohibited in most of the countries, didn't you read on it? You really need to be reminded that we live in the new covenant/testament period, and that we all belong to God. Do i read those rights again?

See above. Of course the new covenant in which God cannot ask you to kill and torture children? Yet you claim that this is God who can decide to do these things. My question is whether you will go ahead with such abhorrent instructions if told to do so.

Image123:

He was already there before. He's everywhere don't you know? What my friend thehomer is the source of life. Don't link me please, just your answer plain/simple.

Go ahead and insert your God wherever you want. What do you mean by life?

Image123:

i asked you to define the words 'science', 'proof' and 'evidence' seeing you maintained that they were different from one another. Now i gave you definition that showed otherwise and gave the source, still you're asking 'what definition' i'm using?

Did you not notice that the definitions had some numbers before them?

Image123:

i don't need a cult dictionary to define words in a preconceived and forced thinking. All the common dictionaries would give the same result of what i quoted.

Actually they do not. Look it up on Wiktionary and Dictionary.com. Actually, you'll notice that in Wiktionary, there is a special definition that binds logic and mathematics.

Image123:

You asked for a link and i gave you a google link. It's up to you to look for what you need to look for in it. So now it's only one showing what i said? i thought you initially said they didn't. Read well, you may yet learn.

No. Please go back and read my request. I asked for the scientists that made that claim. I'll simply have to take your claim as a lie since you've been unable to present one.

Image123:

Age and formation of the stars? Are you really referring to those suppositions, probabilities and hypotheses?

No. I'm referring to the theories.

Image123:

Differing sects and groups abound in all sphere of life. Differences are caused by unequal knowledge or understanding, not faith.

Rubbish. So tell me, who has the best understanding? And how do you know this? Please do not evade this as is your wont.

Image123:

the·o·ry [th əree, three]
(plural the·o·ries)
noun
1.  rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice

Many coaches have a good grasp of the theory of football but can't motivate players.

2.  speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Another reason why I advice you to get a better dictionary. Why don't you look up "scientific theory"?

Image123:

But you know that the Bible says the opposite of your question. What's confusion in humans not been the same? We're created to be united in our diversities.

Rubbish. As usual, what the Bible says and what it shows are different. It takes a lot of gymnastics to make them the same.

Image123:

Those were always in that Bible passage, i didn't force them there. You've seen it for yourself.

What I saw was you forcing it to fit your Bible.

Image123:

You said "Please can you point me to any English Language dictionary that supports any of these proposals of yours?". Now it's there, you want it not as the example. You need to be serious. And if you're really serious, you'll want to know more what the christians call faith, or what God calls faith. Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The definition did not say faith was evidence, that was in the example. I asked for the definition which you've failed to present.

Image123:

i believe you now see that maths is an integral science, and actually used to solve so many scientific problems.'

You're simply repeating what I said previously.

Image123:

How about the group that found their claims to be true and truth?

Which group was that? The Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Seventh day adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican, Russian Orthodox etc. Pray tell me which group?

Image123:

Are you lost in the discuss or something? what's this, code of what? Let me refresh you a little. i was talking about the divinity of the Scriptures, and among other things like its popularity and answers to life's problem, how it was amazing ling preserved despite specific hauntings and persecutions., and we went like

---

thehomer: Preservation? Actually, there are books older than the Bible available. Are they divine too?
Image123: Do you have them with you?
thehomer: No I don't but you can look them up.
Image123: Where?
thehomer: Simply google world's oldest books. I'll no longer be spoon feeding you unless it's absolutely necessary.
Image123: Oh so i can only find it on google. So much for divine comparisons.
thehomer: It's so divine that the God behind it allowed just one copy not like some Gods who allow forgeries and adulteration of their works.
Image123: Why don't you honestly accept that it's a much forgotten insignificant book?
thehomer: Because it is obviously not forgotten and is not insignificant.
Image123: If it was significant enough, you'd have a copy instead of the many copies of bible that you have. you'd read and quote it if it was significant. you'd be bold to say the name.
thehomer: Oh I have digital copies of some of those books and the Bible. I don't often quote them to people whose only knowledge is the Bible.
Image123: names please.
thehomer: There's the Code of Hammurabi, the Analects of Confucious, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Five Rings and many many more.

---

Are these the divine books older than the Bible, and that you don't have, but later miraculously have digital copies of? Disappointing really. Well the point has been made that it's only the Bible that shows us a sure way of salvation, all others either do not show, or are skeptical in themselves.

If you were confused, you could have asked for clarification. What I meant was that I did not have their physical copies with me.

Image123:

And i said i presently wasn't interested in clarifying,remember? i.e on spirit and soul in case you don't.

So you deliberately wish to be vague? This implies that you're not serious in having a proper discussion. Think of a discussion in which one party refuses to clarify their false of confusing statements.

Image123:

Your question is too general, and i'm not their judge. But specifically, any one who disobeys the word of God in any century or generation, including the present, is not a christian.
1John 3:10  In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Now that you're caught with a direct question, you wish to evade. Here's another one to narrow it down since that one was too broad for you. Were popes John X, John XII and Alexander XI Christians? How about pope Benedict XVI?

Image123:

You're the one being equivocal. You perfectly know the Bible i've been referring to. Even google and wiki know. You're the one who's been labouring to bring in what's not.

Again, you act as though you've not been presented evidence of other books that are in other Bibles. Why don't you look that up too?

Image123:

And where are those 'instructions' located again?

Carefully look through your Bible otherwise I'll have to say you're being deeply ignorant of your Bible or being dishonest.

Image123:

You answer, why was that other tree called the tree of life, even though Adam was alive? give a try atleast?

Yet again, you avoid a direct question. To answer yours, it was called that because if he ate that, he would live forever. Now answer mine.

Image123:

PROOF?

You should request for evidence rather than proof. Go and study on Nebuchadnezzar and the extent of his influence. You may start here. Check the extent of his empire.
Do yourself a favour and avoid looking so dishonest.

Image123:

What you were saying is not in the Bible. 'Slavery' is not the word used in the Bible. It's 'servants'. You've been avoiding that word like fire, going for slavery instead.

Slave is not used in the Bible? You're simply lying. Note the meaning of slave that I'm using.

Image123:

God doesn't 'need' faith. It's man that needs faith. If you were serious about knowing God, you'd have faith seeing that's the way. You think there are no spirits? so you don't know you have a spirit? maybe i might have to talk about spirits afterall? Only the believer the pure in heart that can see God, every other person remains a blind bat blinded by the devil. You can actually belief, you have faith. It's like a radio/tv station and a radio/tv antenna. The radio/tv station might be broadcasting all day 24-7 i.e God. It's up to every individual to get their radio/tv antenna working and tuned to receive. If you don't have or tune the antenna, you may never receive signal. If you can believe thehomer, you'll see.

Your God is unserious in in requiring faith. If a miracle was good enough for you, it'll be good enough for me. Tell him to send me a miracle that will turn me to him.

Donlittle:

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing man that he didnt exist." Satan is not a conspiracy, he is as real as the eyes or eye on your face. True knowledge is knowing God and fearing him.

Try this one.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing man that he was God. Satan is not a conspiracy, he is as real as the eyes on your face. He only switched changed his name to God in the Bible.

correction: God created hell according to the ""christian"" point of view. This is how christians threaten us Pagans when we refuse to convert. They tell us dat we r gnna go to hell and that we r devil worshippers.

thehomer:

Try this one.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing man that he was God. Satan is not a conspiracy, he is as real as the eyes on your face. He only switched changed his name to God in the Bible.

Exactly, since he pulled a trick there was God
wont there be a real God?  isnt it that he is confusing human? to stop them from knowing Him? wondering what it will profit a man to have all these money and lose heaven.
I can only convince you to be something that is real, not something that is not?? same goes for everyother person in the world.

so now why is devil trying to be God if there isnt?? why is he trying to act like God if there is no God. My answer : Because there is a God the king of kings, That you have rejected, but soon you will accept him willingly

With what u said here, i have to come to the conclusion, that yall atheist, so if he switch his name to God in the bible, were is God? isnt there a supernatural spirit?

Donlittle:

Exactly, since he pulled a trick there was God
wont there be a real God?  isnt it that he is confusing human? to stop them from knowing Him? wondering what it will profit a man to have all these money and lose heaven.
I can only convince you to be something that is real, not something that is not?? same goes for everyother person in the world.

You miss the point. The point is this. Did God order those atrocities when he was fully capable of punishing them himself?

Donlittle:

so now why is devil trying to be God if there isnt?? why is he trying to act like God if there is no God. My answer : Because there is a God the king of kings, That you have rejected, but soon you will accept him willingly

Where was God while he was trying to act like him? Did he allow the devil to corrupt the Bible so much that we cannot tell the difference between this devil and God?

Donlittle:

With what u said here, i have to come to the conclusion, that yall atheist, so if he switch his name to God in the bible, were is God? isnt there a supernatural spirit?

Don't get me wrong. I'm simply showing you some of the implications of some assumptions about God's nature.

@thehomer

This is starting to bore me. If you really cannot see that owning people as slaves is different from being a football player or being an employee then your ignorance is too deep for me to breach or you simply wish to continue in your fallacy.

Sincerely, there's nothing, as in NOTHING wrong with owning people as servants. As much as you may want to wish or ideal otherwise, all fingers are not equal. Everyone doesn't have the same weight, or skin colour, or salary, or talents. We all have different backgrounds, not the same. And BTW, your background is never a reason for your back to be on the ground(defeated). We can actually achieve our dreams and aspirations. A servant can rule, and a prince can beg. It's not a one way ticket. Some people would always serve others, some servants are masters to other servants(i.e some masters are servants to other masters). It's not about the title, but the relationship. Some people are manager, oga, but they almost wash the undies of their director. i've shown you that life doesn't depend wholly on whether you're bought or inherited. It depends on how you react to life and others. And that's what the Bible teaches. the Bible's not a tongue in cheek politically correct book saying all men are equal and free, this's not true in any part of the world. Here's the practical injunction to follow;
Ephesians 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
Ephesians 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

It registered very well because the picture you paint makes you worse than even Kim Jong Il. Even he won't murder his children or allow them to be murdered willy nilly.

It's not the picture painted that's the problem but the blurred vision you have(or blind vision as i may more correctly say). How do i explain this to you, if i used analogies you rather pick at/dwell on the analogies instead of getting the perspective. But God is like no other i.e there's no one like God. The analogies are only meant to help you see at a closer/different angle. i've told you before, you can't accuse God of murder. Murder is a crime, it's illegal, God cannot commit a crime. It's like for instance when humans rear poultry, you can't accuse me of murdering chickens for christmas, it's kind of ridiculous. We didn't even create the chickens, but we own them, and rear them, we feed them and house them, and can conveniently decide how many/which we want to use for food. i'm told that more than 50billion chickens are reared annually as a source of food, not mention their potential children which we use as eggs.
In a greater vein, God owns the earth and all that is in it, He made it all. While chickens may be a source of wealth, or expensive possessions, we are not to God.
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
Isa 40:17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
That's why we talk about grace. We talk about why God is mindful of us, and of what great privilege it is that He wants us to be His children, and to live with Him eternally. He's unquestionable. It's a strange thing when people relate God and murder, genocide, barbaric and all what not. God is not a man.

Covenants shmovenants. Slavery is a very important issue which was pretty much supported by both your Gods.

what's shmovenants? In the new covenant, there's no physical going out to war, turning captives to servants and co. Slavery was never supported by God both in the old or new testaments, but there are servants and masters. Slavery denotes a combination of the following:
-being forced to work, no compensation, legality of owners to kill slaves, no escape, oppression(e.g forced sex slaves and gladiators), bad treatment and chains, slave pens.
These are different from the relationships enjoyed by Bible masters and servants in that it was actually possible for a servant to declare "i love, i love my Master". A Bible servant could be a lord in his own rights, he could also eat while working. You paint an insincere picture when you talk of 'slavery' been supported in scriptures. The right translation of the relationship was servant, not slave. And when one thinks that the disciples were servants, Elisha was a servant, Abraham had servants, Jeroboam was servant, there remains no cause for alarm.

Rubbish. A God that acts that way is not worthy of being considered a God. You can see this page for a dissection of such a view made by a well known apologist.

i sometimes wonder who made you a judge, and what makes you to be right and others wrong when it comes to the question of morality. An atheist talking about morality, for what purpose?

Aww I'm sorry your God didn't have the declaration of human rights to make it criminal for him to have his acts of genocide.
Again, you still fail to see something that is obviously wrong which humans have identified but your God couldn't.

i've addressed this above.

See above. Of course the new covenant in which God cannot ask you to kill and torture children? Yet you claim that this is God who can decide to do these things. My question is whether you will go ahead with such abhorrent instructions if told to do so.

God doesn't ask us to torture anyone, whether OT or NT. And God respects His agreements/covenants with us. We live in a covenant period of GRACE. Like the Bible says, there's time for everything. It's the time of grace, the time when you can repent.

Go ahead and insert your God wherever you want. What do you mean by life?

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Obviously, i didn't put Him there, He was there before me.
In this case, i mean human life.

Did you not notice that the definitions had some numbers before them?

Did i? What i noticed was that they were synonymous which i earlier stated but which you refused, because you want to make a point.

Actually they do not. Look it up on Wiktionary and Dictionary.com. Actually, you'll notice that in Wiktionary, there is a special definition that binds logic and mathematics.

oh we now require special definitions ba?

No. Please go back and read my request. I asked for the scientists that made that claim. I'll simply have to take your claim as a lie since you've been unable to present one.

This is very irrelevant. The point has been stated, and it's that no human was there when stars formed so they can't begin to tell us(beating the chest) that stars form and annihilate regularly. i'm not obliged to show you what scientist said what. It's commonly taught in the science faculty. What part exactly disturbs you, that the Holocene is 10,000 years ago, or that 'modern humans evolved' in that time?

No. I'm referring to the theories.

why are you taking me through these circles? we already seen from those links that you sent earlier that they are hypotheses and suppositions, and you even commented that they were been honest or so. Theories are castles in the air, speculation.

@thehomer

Rubbish. So tell me, who has the best understanding? And how do you know this? Please do not evade this as is your wont.

Sorry to disappoint you, no one has the best understanding. (1Corinthians 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.). The more important thing is the application of our knowledge(s), which is wisdom. And wisdom is to fear God, and to fear God is to obey Him and please Him. Everyone that has faith in God/believes in Christ is a member of His body. And has parts of His body, we may actually appear different, but in truth are one universal invisible and invincible body of Christ.

Another reason why I advice you to get a better dictionary. Why don't you look up "scientific theory"?

What's the definition of a better dictionary? you just said that 'the fact that it is a theory is not a bad thing', now i'm to look up scientific theory. Is 'scientific theory' not still a THEORY?
Theory may be well accepted knowledge, but it's still hypotheses and probability.

Rubbish. As usual, what the Bible says and what it shows are different. It takes a lot of gymnastics to make them the same.

Where's the lot of gymnastics? i wrote you one line on this. The Bible says and shows that humans are diverse, and that it's God's will and plan for us all to be united. Do you need scriptures for these or you know it?

What I saw was you forcing it to fit your Bible.

And what was been forced into the Bible that wasn't there? 'turned', 'swaddling', 'band' and 'circle' are all in the Bible describing the shape and movement of the earth. On the other hand, you're seriously hoping the word 'flat' would appear. Stop this vain hope and get serious.

The definition did not say faith was evidence, that was in the example. I asked for the definition which you've failed to present.

i quoted you as saying "Please can you point me to any English Language dictionary that supports any of these proposals of yours?". i've shown you that, though it never matters to me from the start whether a dictionary supported faith or not. Faith is what i practice, and i've shown you from a more sure book, the Bible, what faith means. Stop grumping and get real. You can't rate a dictionary's word on faith above the book that enjoins us all to practice it.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

You're simply repeating what I said previously.

Maybe you said it, but didn't see it? What you saw was that 'Science doesn't do proofs because it relies on evidence. You get proofs in mathematics and logic. Science is much broader than that.'. But all glory be to God, it seems you now see that maths is an integral science, and actually used to solve so many scientific problems.

Which group was that? The Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Seventh day adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican, Russian Orthodox etc. Pray tell me which group?

Do you believe such group exists? i.e the group that found their claims to be true and truth.

If you were confused, you could have asked for clarification. What I meant was that I did not have their physical copies with me.

It's so sweet of you to clarify. So how many of these books you mentioned as in your possession are older than the Bible? How many have being amazingly preserved despite specific huntings and persecutions?

So you deliberately wish to be vague? This implies that you're not serious in having a proper discussion. Think of a discussion in which one party refuses to clarify their false of confusing statements.

We've been discussing and are discussing so many issues at once. i said i didn't want to talk about spirits. What's not serious in having a proper discussion? You may not want to discuss all issues, and i may not also. If you're so interested in discussing spirits still, maybe you should open a thread on that, i'll try my best to be available for that, happy?

Now that you're caught with a direct question, you wish to evade. Here's another one to narrow it down since that one was too broad for you. Were popes John X, John XII and Alexander XI Christians? How about pope Benedict XVI?

i told you I AM NOT THEIR JUDGE, how did you miss that? It's difficult to answer if someone is a christian or not, i don't know those people you just mentioned apart from maybe being popes. One might be an hypocrite, one might be a sinner and later repent. It's not my position to sentence people to Christianity or Unbelief. But we can discuss actions. Like is this or that action right biblically? If Mr A does this, will God be happy/pleased. By their fruits, we know them. We can say that's christian thing to do, that's not christian. But i can't tell you 14th century catholics were not christians, i can't even say 21st century protestants are christians. Every individual has his own life to live, and God the only Potentate sees more than i see. He can say so and so is christian, i can only tell you it's unchristian/christian of Pastor X or Brother B to do this/that.

Again, you act as though you've not been presented evidence of other books that are in other Bibles. Why don't you look that up too?

The bolded speaks more than i may.
Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9  As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Carefully look through your Bible otherwise I'll have to say you're being deeply ignorant of your Bible or being dishonest.

Be kind to show me, we learn everyday. i.e instructions on how to acquire a slave, how to keep one and how to treat one.
Here's the only place i see the word 'slave' and it's even inserted, (Jeremiah 2:14  Is Israel a servant? is he a homeborn slave? why is he spoiled?) i do not see any such instructions of which you speak, or are you seeing these things by faith?

Yet again, you avoid a direct question. To answer yours, it was called that because if he ate that, he would live forever. Now answer mine.

it's a good try that. So he was already living/or had life then right? Even though he had not ate of the tree of life? Is it equally safe to say he had some knowledge of good and evil even before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? There's your answer in ?format except you are applying double standards for our poor greatgrandpa.

You should request for evidence rather than proof. Go and study on Nebuchadnezzar and the extent of his influence. You may start here. Check the extent of his empire.
Do yourself a favour and avoid looking so dishonest.

Okay, EVIDENCE then? Because i find no evidence in the link you sent to suggest that 'Nebu' did not even know of their existence while we do know that people lived there before during and after his reign. Just curious, do you trust that link, i mean that particular article to be truth?

Slave is not used in the Bible? You're simply lying. Note the meaning of slave that I'm using.

ser·vant [súrvənt]
(plural ser·vants)
noun
 somebody who serves another: an employee who serves somebody else, especially an employee hired to do household tasks or be a personal attendant to somebody.
 A person working in the service of another (especially in the household)
 In a subordinate position
The word 'servant' appears 465 times in the Bible from a search i just made. The word 'servants' appear another 444 times. Isn't it disturbing that the word 'slave' and 'slaves' appear only once each in scriptures. It doesn't even appear that they are synonyms from my current search. So who's conveniently lying? Where's your proof, or is it evidence?

Your God is unserious in in requiring faith. If a miracle was good enough for you, it'll be good enough for me. Tell him to send me a miracle that will turn me to him.

You remind me of a petulant youth who thought  the higher institution was 'stewpid' to require his o'levels before he could be admitted. He ended up submitting both WASSCE, GCE and NECO, and topped it with a certain JAMB pre and post. The station is showing friend. Go, get your antenna or decoder FOR FREE, and connect.
Mark 9:23  Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Image123:

@thehomerSincerely, there's nothing, as in NOTHING wrong with owning people as servants. As much as you may want to wish or ideal otherwise, all fingers are not equal. Everyone doesn't have the same weight, or skin colour, or salary, or talents. We all have different backgrounds, not the same. And BTW, your background is never a reason for your back to be on the ground(defeated). We can actually achieve our dreams and aspirations. A servant can rule, and a prince can beg. It's not a one way ticket. Some people would always serve others, some servants are masters to other servants(i.e some masters are servants to other masters). It's not about the title, but the relationship. Some people are manager, oga, but they almost wash the undies of their director. i've shown you that life doesn't depend wholly on whether you're bought or inherited. It depends on how you react to life and others. And that's what the Bible teaches. the Bible's not a tongue in cheek politically correct book saying all men are equal and free, this's not true in any part of the world. Here's the practical injunction to follow;
Ephesians 6:8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
Ephesians 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.It's not the picture painted that's the problem but the blurred vision you have(or blind vision as i may more correctly say). How do i explain this to you, if i used analogies you rather pick at/dwell on the analogies instead of getting the perspective. But God is like no other i.e there's no one like God. The analogies are only meant to help you see at a closer/different angle. i've told you before, you can't accuse God of murder. Murder is a crime, it's illegal, God cannot commit a crime. It's like for instance when humans rear poultry, you can't accuse me of murdering chickens for christmas, it's kind of ridiculous. We didn't even create the chickens, but we own them, and rear them, we feed them and house them, and can conveniently decide how many/which we want to use for food. i'm told that more than 50billion chickens are reared annually as a source of food, not mention their potential children which we use as eggs.
In a greater vein, God owns the earth and all that is in it, He made it all. While chickens may be a source of wealth, or expensive possessions, we are not to God.
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
Isa 40:17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
That's why we talk about grace. We talk about why God is mindful of us, and of what great privilege it is that He wants us to be His children, and to live with Him eternally. He's unquestionable. It's a strange thing when people relate God and murder, genocide, barbaric and all what not. God is not a man.

I've given you more than enough time on this topic but the sort of thinking you're displaying makes me shake my head in wonder.
If you really do not see anything wrong with owning people the way it is described in the Bible, then I simply have to advice you not to try that in the modern world because you will end up in prison when you're caught.
And you go on to compare God's murder to humans eating animals is as usual a bad analogy especially when we understand that humans are quite different in terms of mental, moral and social capabilities from other animals.
It seems you really have a lot to learn on how to actually make moral judgements.

Image123:

what's shmovenants? In the new covenant, there's no physical going out to war, turning captives to servants and co. Slavery was never supported by God both in the old or new testaments, but there are servants and masters. Slavery denotes a combination of the following:
-being forced to work, no compensation, legality of owners to kill slaves, no escape, oppression(e.g forced sex slaves and gladiators), bad treatment and chains, slave pens.
These are different from the relationships enjoyed by Bible masters and servants in that it was actually possible for a servant to declare "i love, i love my Master". A Bible servant could be a lord in his own rights, he could also eat while working. You paint an insincere picture when you talk of 'slavery' been supported in scriptures. The right translation of the relationship was servant, not slave. And when one thinks that the disciples were servants, Elisha was a servant, Abraham had servants, Jeroboam was servant, there remains no cause for alarm.

And here, you simply redefine slavery. I've already given you the definition I'm using. If you think it's acceptable to treat people that way, then I'll simply leave you to such bad moral thinking.

Image123:

i sometimes wonder who made you a judge, and what makes you to be right and others wrong when it comes to the question of morality. An atheist talking about morality, for what purpose?i've addressed this above.

Morality is a human thing. It concerns all humans religious and non-religious alike. This I think is the core problem that you don't understand about your brand of immoral reasoning.

Image123:

God doesn't ask us to torture anyone, whether OT or NT. And God respects His agreements/covenants with us. We live in a covenant period of GRACE. Like the Bible says, there's time for everything. It's the time of grace, the time when you can repent.

I asked you a direct question and you're evading it. Why don't you actually answer the question? Saying God won't do it makes no sense unless you control God.

Image123:

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Obviously, i didn't put Him there, He was there before me.
In this case, i mean human life.

The animals that lived before humans evolved.

Image123:

Did i? What i noticed was that they were synonymous which i earlier stated but which you refused, because you want to make a point.

You need to realize that they do not all apply equally. This is why you need to be specific.

Image123:

oh we now require special definitions ba?

Simply look it up.

Image123:

This is very irrelevant. The point has been stated, and it's that no human was there when stars formed so they can't begin to tell us(beating the chest) that stars form and annihilate regularly. i'm not obliged to show you what scientist said what. It's commonly taught in the science faculty. What part exactly disturbs you, that the Holocene is 10,000 years ago, or that 'modern humans evolved' in that time?

No it is not irrelevant because if you cannot give the names of these scientist, then you were lying when you made that statement and I really do not like having to converse with someone who when wrong will not admit it and allow us to move on.
Saying that eye-witness testimony is the only thing acceptable to you makes me wonder how it is that you think you survive in the modern world.
The fact is that the evolution of humans took millions of years and your attempted distinction "modern humans" is a false one unless you have the biological properties that distinguishes them from the humans that were present 12,000 years ago.

Image123:

why are you taking me through these circles? we already seen from those links that you sent earlier that they are hypotheses and suppositions, and you even commented that they were been honest or so. Theories are castles in the air, speculation.

Your last statement shows your high degree of scientific ignorance. I hope you realize that the germ theory of disease, gravity, continental drift, the electron are all theories. Think of how absurd you look to one who is informed.

thehomer
I'm waiting for you to finish na? Are you too busy preparing for the 'end'?

Image123:

thehomer
I'm waiting for you to finish na? Are you too busy preparing for the 'end'?

Well the end is close. Just a few days away.
Though you could have replied to the one I posted since I'll just be repeating previous points I made in my response to that post. Anyway, here goes.

Image123:

@thehomer
Sorry to disappoint you, no one has the best understanding. (1Corinthians 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.). The more important thing is the application of our knowledge(s), which is wisdom. And wisdom is to fear God, and to fear God is to obey Him and please Him. Everyone that has faith in God/believes in Christ is a member of His body. And has parts of His body, we may actually appear different, but in truth are one universal invisible and invincible body of Christ.

If no one has the best understanding, then people who claim using the Bible that the world will end on May 21^st 2011 should not be criticized by Christians. This also means other Christians who are not in your particular sect may also be right so how did you decide on the sect to choose?

Image123:

What's the definition of a better dictionary? you just said that 'the fact that it is a theory is not a bad thing', now i'm to look up scientific theory. Is 'scientific theory' not still a THEORY?
Theory may be well accepted knowledge, but it's still hypotheses and probability.

There are several better online dictionaries that you can use for easy comparison. A scientific theory has a different meaning from a theory as used in common parlance.

Image123:

Where's the lot of gymnastics? i wrote you one line on this. The Bible says and shows that humans are diverse, and that it's God's will and plan for us all to be united. Do you need scriptures for these or you know it?

It's pretty obvious from the Bible that God does not want us all to be united otherwise, why will he create Heaven and Hell?

Image123:

And what was been forced into the Bible that wasn't there? 'turned', 'swaddling', 'band' and 'circle' are all in the Bible describing the shape and movement of the earth. On the other hand, you're seriously hoping the word 'flat' would appear. Stop this vain hope and get serious.

It's not me hoping, it's what is written in the Bible. Circles are flat, there are no pillars holding up parts of the earth etc. So there's no need to add your own misinterpretation especially after being corrected.

Image123:

i quoted you as saying "Please can you point me to any English Language dictionary that supports any of these proposals of yours?". i've shown you that, though it never matters to me from the start whether a dictionary supported faith or not. Faith is what i practice, and i've shown you from a more sure book, the Bible, what faith means. Stop grumping and get real. You can't rate a dictionary's word on faith above the book that enjoins us all to practice it.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

No. You did not show any dictionary [/b]supporting your claim that faith is evidence. Why don't you do that?

Image123:

Maybe you said it, but didn't see it? What you saw was that 'Science [b]doesn't do proofs because it relies on evidence. You get proofs in mathematics and logic. Science is much broader than that.'. But all glory be to God, it seems you now see that maths is an integral science, and actually used to solve so many scientific problems.

Too bad you didn't see it. You should read my posts more carefully.

Image123:

Do you believe such group exists? i.e the group that found their claims to be true and truth.

That's what those various groups think.

Image123:

It's so sweet of you to clarify. So how many of these books you mentioned as in your possession are older than the Bible? How many have being amazingly preserved despite specific huntings and persecutions?

Is that the top criteria for a book being divine?

Image123:

We've been discussing and are discussing so many issues at once. i said i didn't want to talk about spirits. What's not serious in having a proper discussion? You may not want to discuss all issues, and i may not also. If you're so interested in discussing spirits still, maybe you should open a thread on that, i'll try my best to be available for that, happy?

Ok. But with the way things are going, I probably won't waste my time doing that.

Image123:

i told you I AM NOT THEIR JUDGE, how did you miss that? It's difficult to answer if someone is a christian or not, i don't know those people you just mentioned apart from maybe being popes. One might be an hypocrite, one might be a sinner and later repent. It's not my position to sentence people to Christianity or Unbelief. But we can discuss actions. Like is this or that action right biblically? If Mr A does this, will God be happy/pleased. By their fruits, we know them. We can say that's christian thing to do, that's not christian. But i can't tell you 14th century catholics were not christians, i can't even say 21st century protestants are christians. Every individual has his own life to live, and God the only Potentate sees more than i see. He can say so and so is christian, i can only tell you it's unchristian/christian of Pastor X or Brother B to do this/that.

Hmmm. So you're the one who truly decides what actions are Christian or otherwise. That's interesting. I hope Adeboye and others come to you to ask for advice.

Image123:

The bolded speaks more than i may.
Galatians 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9  As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I'm talking about the extra books of the Bible that were not added based on the decisions of some committees.

Image123:

Be kind to show me, we learn everyday. i.e instructions on how to acquire a slave, how to keep one and how to treat one.
Here's the only place i see the word 'slave' and it's even inserted, (Jeremiah 2:14  Is Israel a servant? is he a homeborn slave? why is he spoiled?) i do not see any such instructions of which you speak, or are you seeing these things by faith?

Then go and read Leviticus 25 keeping in mind the definition of slave that I'm using.

Image123:

it's a good try that. So he was already living/or had life then right? Even though he had not ate of the tree of life? Is it equally safe to say he had some knowledge of good and evil even before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? There's your answer in ?format except you are applying double standards for our poor greatgrandpa.

Here your comparison falls apart because dead people do not eat unless you know of one that does. Eating the fruit of the tree was to grant eternal life but eating the other was to grant knowledge of good and evil.

Image123:

Okay, EVIDENCE then? Because i find no evidence in the link you sent to suggest that 'Nebu' did not even know of their existence while we do know that people lived there before during and after his reign. Just curious, do you trust that link, i mean that particular article to be truth?

Here, you simply wish to be absurd. Unless you can demonstrate that his empire reached the Americas and Australia, then I simply have to take it that you're being unserious.

Image123:

ser·vant [súrvənt]
(plural ser·vants)
noun
 somebody who serves another: an employee who serves somebody else, especially an employee hired to do household tasks or be a personal attendant to somebody.
 A person working in the service of another (especially in the household)
 In a subordinate position
The word 'servant' appears 465 times in the Bible from a search i just made. The word 'servants' appear another 444 times. Isn't it disturbing that the word 'slave' and 'slaves' appear only once each in scriptures. It doesn't even appear that they are synonyms from my current search. So who's conveniently lying? Where's your proof, or is it evidence?

It is interesting how people like counting the number of times certain words appear in certain translations of a Bible. Which definition do you wish to use? And which of those definitions meets the thought expressed in e.g Lev. 25:46?

Image123:

You remind me of a petulant youth who thought  the higher institution was 'stewpid' to require his o'levels before he could be admitted. He ended up submitting both WASSCE, GCE and NECO, and topped it with a certain JAMB pre and post. The station is showing friend. Go, get your antenna or decoder FOR FREE, and connect.
Mark 9:23  Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

You're free to talk to your God and ask him to come to me and perform his miracle since he knows that I'm not a very gullible person. He should put some effort into it.

@ Image123,
I have previously replied that post but for some reason, it didn't get posted or it somehow got deleted. Anyway, go ahead with this response.

I would like to make a clarification since I finished having a debate with a Christian that was denying that God wanted slavery. In Hebrew word used for servant and slave are the same ("eved" ). That is to say that eved is a homonym and is used to describe two distinct concepts(as we know them). The proper translation has to be discerned from context. In many parts such as Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy etc. . .  the appropriate translation is the English word for slave due to the fact that the individuals are forced to obey.

slave |slāv|
noun chiefly historical
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

and not servant

servant |ˈsərvənt|
noun
a person who performs duties for others, esp. a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

Idehn:

I would like to make a clarification since I finished having a debate with a Christian that was denying that God wanted slavery. In Hebrew word used for servant and slave are the same ("eved" ). That is to say that eved is a homonym and is used to describe two distinct concepts(as we know them). The proper translation has to be discerned from context. In many parts such as Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy etc. . .  the appropriate translation is the English word for slave due to the fact that the individuals are forced to obey.

slave |slāv|
noun chiefly historical
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

and not servant

servant |ˈsərvənt|
noun
a person who performs duties for others, esp. a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant.

That's good to know. Thanks for the clarification.

Matthew 25:41. "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"

Emphasis on prepared for the devil and his angels.

Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

Revelatios 20:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

John 3:17 "For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
(For clearity read John 3:16-18)

John 1:12 "But to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name"

In summary, hell was prepared not for the souls of men but for the devil and his angels (messangers). Man can escape from death and hell to life & eternity through Christ Jesus.
God is Love and in Jesus Christ is that Love ultimately expressed. We were all on course to eternal life before sin derailed us and God in his mercies gave up Christ that the gap caused by sin be bridged. The price was paid once for all & there is no other way through which men might be saved.

The choice is to each man where he will spend eternity.

Onchedu:

Matthew 25:41. "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"

Emphasis on prepared for the devil and his angels.

Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

Revelatios 20:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

John 3:17 "For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
(For clearity read John 3:16-18)

John 1:12 "But to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name"

In summary, hell was prepared not for the souls of men but for the devil and his angels (messangers). Man can escape from death and hell to life & eternity through Christ Jesus.
God is Love and in Jesus Christ is that Love ultimately expressed. We were all on course to eternal life before sin derailed us and God in his mercies gave up Christ that the gap caused by sin be bridged. The price was paid once for all & there is no other way through which men might be saved.

The choice is to each man where he will spend eternity.

The very fact that he knew that some people will be going to hell means that he did not intend for all humans to be with him. Added to this the fact that Jesus said many times that the majority of people were going to be in Hell.

@thehomer

I've given you more than enough time on this topic but the sort of thinking you're displaying makes me shake my head in wonder.
If you really do not see anything wrong with owning people the way it is described in the Bible, then I simply have to advice you not to try that in the modern world because you will end up in prison when you're caught

it's unfortunate that you've failed to see what i'm saying. i've shown you that the concepts that you speak of are still in practice in different spheres in the world, and not many people are frowning at it. People are still being bought and sold, and workers are still being inherited. As you've seen, those concepts are not the main issues of life but the relationship shared despite the concepts. Footballers are bought and sold in the transfer market, not many people think too wrong of that. Workers are inherited, UBA bought some other bank during the 'consolidation' and inherited some of the workers (some considered themselves unfortunate not to be inherited in this event). If Dangote died yesterday, and willed his estate to you, you'd be inheriting a majority of his workers. This is the modern world, i'll speak more on this down this post.

And you go on to compare God's murder to humans eating animals is as usual a bad analogy especially when we understand that humans are quite different in terms of mental, moral and social capabilities from other animals.
It seems you really have a lot to learn on how to actually make moral judgements.

There you go again on the murder fallacy, its wrong to accuse God of murder just as ridiculous as accusing you of murdering your ducks. It's not strange you think highly of yourself and your kind, maybe its the same way chicken think of themselves. The analogy shows you that humans kill BILLIONS annually of what they cannot create without remorse. On the other hand, God created us and owns us, the earth and everything, and we are less than nothing before Him. It is His GRACE that makes us something, it's a rare privilege that He considers us, this is the Bible/truth. i guess the chickens may also feel that you need to learn how to make moral judgement, whatever that means. It's like when we are on ground and we see things so gigantic and beautifully splendid, until we're up high in an airplane and see everything as toys. You need the right perspective.

And here, you simply redefine slavery. I've already given you the definition I'm using. If you think it's acceptable to treat people that way, then I'll simply leave you to such bad moral thinking.

You're the one redefining slavery using scriptures, amazingly you do not permit that i define faith using scriptures. Check up your beloved wikipedia for description of slavery. It fully supports what i said earlier on slavery that it is a combo of being forced to work, no compensation, legality of owners to kill slaves, no escape, oppression(e.g forced sex slaves and gladiators), bad treatment and chains, slave pens.. All these factors are not combined in the biblical servant, actually some are the opposite way. The english translators of the A.V deemed it fit to describe the situation as 'servant' not 'slave' obviously because slavery would be a wrong hazy translation.

Morality is a human thing. It concerns all humans religious and non-religious alike. This I think is the core problem that you don't understand about your brand of immoral reasoning.

We been through this already?  You're appealing to a seeming majority which is a fallacy, isn't it? Morality is relative with humans, you consider it immoral to flog a man, while this is a normal law in some parts of the world. That's why we talked about standards and God's word being the standard and arbiter. So for what purpose are you 'moral'(been curious)?

I asked you a direct question and you're evading it. Why don't you actually answer the question? Saying God won't do it makes no sense unless you control God.

I can't be told to do so! What part of this sentence don't you understand exactly? You're generalising that God would do this because He did it before, and you're denying God's faithfulness to His covenant.
Numbers 23:19  God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Psalm 89:34  My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
We live in a covenant of love and grace, whereein we are to bless even those who hate us, and love our enemies.

The animals that lived before humans evolved.

So you see God was there alright before me. So what is the source of the animals' life? [s]How exactly did animal life jump into human life? Oh sorry, evolution right, let's skip that for more serious issues, i think?[/s]

You need to realize that they do not all apply equally. This is why you need to be specific.

Good mrspecifico, but to layboys like us, 'proof' and 'evidence' are the same thing.

Simply look it up.

So we now 'know' where your esoteric views on common issues come from (proof is not evidence, science is not physical hmmmmm). Image123 learn to remember that when discussing with Mr. thehomer aight?

No it is not irrelevant because if you cannot give the names of these scientist, then you were lying when you made that statement and I really do not like having to converse with someone who when wrong will not admit it and allow us to move on.
Saying that eye-witness testimony is the only thing acceptable to you makes me wonder how it is that you think you survive in the modern world.
The fact is that the evolution of humans took millions of years and your attempted distinction "modern humans" is a false one unless you have the biological properties that distinguishes them from the humans that were present 12,000 years ago.

You've been v.lightly reprimanded for your 'Genesis blunder' so you're still sulking, ok ok i'll oblige you.Please i wish that we 'move on', forgive me for not allowing us to earlier.
Here's what i said ithink? Science says the most recent time is the holocene epoch(estimated to be about 11500 years ago) when 'modern humans evolved'.. It seems you don't have much pains on the holocene 10000, 11500, 12000 or whatever number comes to the imagination, but to be safe i'll give a name.

The Holocene (Greek for “wholly recent”) Epoch began 11,500 years ago and continues into the present. It is also called the Recent Epoch. The universal boundary for the Holocene is 11,500 years before the present, as measured in calendar years. Human activity has had an appreciable effect on the earth only in the last few centuries.
Alan Morgan B.Sc, M.Sc, PhD. Professor of earth sciences, university of Waterloo

i hope that's clear/ Okay, then i said that's the time 'modern humans evolved' according to science?

modern humans differ from other animals, and probably many early human species, in that they actively teach each other and can pass on and accumulate unusually large amounts of knowledge. Scientists have traced the evolution of human cultural behavior through the study of archaeological artifacts, such as tools, and related evidence, such as the charred remains of cooked food. By 10,000 years ago, people first began to harvest and cultivate grains and to domesticate animals—a fundamental change in the ecological relationship between human beings and other life on Earth. The development of agriculture provided people with larger quantities and more stable supplies of food, which set the stage for the rise of the first civilizations. Today, culture—and particularly technology—dominates human life. The change first began just 10,000 years ago in the Near East and has accelerated very rapidly since then. It also occurred independently in other places, including areas of Mexico, China, and South America. Since the first domestication of plants and animals, many species over large areas of the planet have come under human control.
Richard B Potts, B.A and Ph.D Department of anthropology, National Museum of natural history, Smithsonian Institution.

Your last statement shows your high degree of scientific ignorance. I hope you realize that the germ theory of disease, gravity, continental drift, the electron are all theories. Think of how absurd you look to one who is informed.

Your links told us that the theories on star formation were suppositions, probabilities and hypotheses. It's not my fault what your links said which you saw. Under theories, some guesses are more informed than others. This is the situation of the theories you've just presented. There's a reason why they are not laws, no? But we can practically observe germs, continental drift, electron, and 'gravitation'(gravity is a law to we layboys, it's gravitation that is a theory). Anyone can easily make informed deductions, even SS1 students. this is a world apart from star formations where we see a star 'disappear' and begin to write motion pictures about how it formed X billion years ago and became a dwarf J million years later, and the distance changed and bla bla. Stop comparing sleep with death, they are not the same though they look alike.

@thehomer

Well the end is close. Just a few days away.

Very smart observation, really.

If no one has the best understanding, then people who claim using the Bible that the world will end on May 21st 2011 should not be criticized by Christians. This also means other Christians who are not in your particular sect may also be right so how did you decide on the sect to choose?

i told you that "Differences are caused by unequal knowledge or understanding, not faith. ". Our knowledge comes from the word of God. i may know what they don't know, and they may also know what i don't know. But there are general truths, and there are things that i know. One person cannot know everything, no one is omniscient except God. i might know a lot about landforms even have a degree, and not know much about the human anatomy. i don't know which of the two is better understanding even though they may both have Ph.Ds in their field. But what each knows they know, and there are general truths that we can agree to, and disagree as well. Truths like Jesus is Lord, Preach the gospel, men should pray, Jesus is coming, Love God and your neighbour etc. In specifics, disagreements may come in but this should not 'divide' us. This is different from when i say Jesus is Lord and you say He is not, that's fundamental.

There are several better online dictionaries that you can use for easy comparison. A scientific theory has a different meaning from a theory as used in common parlance.

A scientific theory is type of theory, yes or no?

It's pretty obvious from the Bible that God does not want us all to be united otherwise, why will he create Heaven and Hell?

Philippians 2:2 Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind
1Peter 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
There are several admonitions to unity and partnership in scripture. How did you miss it, i've stated why God create hell on this thread.
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
There's the original plan. God created us all to have dominion, glorify Him, please Him and serve Him.

It's not me hoping, it's what is written in the Bible. Circles are flat, there are no pillars holding up parts of the earth etc. So there's no need to add your own misinterpretation especially after being corrected.

You behaving very unserious. A circle is round shaped, and is the 'mother/root' of everything connected with round, surround and around. It's today we can talk of X-dimensional, we've developed our math and shape names. In those days, there were no such distinctions.

No. You did not show any dictionary supporting your claim that faith is evidence. Why don't you do that?

Wiktionary was quoted? This is yet another irrelevant argument. Faith has been severally defined to you from the scriptures that preach it.

Too bad you didn't see it. You should read my posts more carefully.

I SAID "Maybe you said it, but didn't see it? " As in, maybe you said it, but maybe YOU didn't see it. Take your advice most carefully.

That's what those various groups think.

But you said "Some were lying, others claim this for monetary gains, yet others may simply wish to go with the crowd then there's the group that are simply deluded and many other groups for other poor reasons.". And you won't answer if you believe such group exist that found the Bible to be divine and inspired by God. Not everyone thinks so mr.

Is that the top criteria for a book being divine?

It's one of the criteria i listed from the beginning of the thread, so bring on thine comparisons?

Ok. But with the way things are going, I probably won't waste my time doing that.

Lazyyyyyyyyyyyy, you been on my neck about it all the while?

Hmmm. So you're the one who truly decides what actions are Christian or otherwise. That's interesting. I hope Adeboye and others come to you to ask for advice.

Is this a poor attempt to misconstrue what i said? i didn't say the above quote, i said we can talk about actions i.e based on the Bible ofcourse. But the heart is another matter. God see the inside motive of each action, i can only go as far as the action, and tell you using scriptures whether this is wrong or right on a general level.

I'm talking about the extra books of the Bible that were not added based on the decisions of some committees.

We've been through this. the fact that they were not added proves that they are not scripture. If they were scriptures, they'd not have passed away as it were.

Then go and read Leviticus 25 keeping in mind the definition of slave that I'm using.

Here's the Leviticus 25 passage that i believe you refer to,

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begot in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.
i believe you wish to highlight the inheritance of servants. Well, the Bible is God's Word, not just two verses or a book. You should take this into cognizance in future 'study'. now, while i've shown you that the relationship is more important than the concept, the concept of maybe buying someone or inheriting someone are still practised in the world today. Even forcing of people to do things(people are forced in the military by their superiors, some parent force their ward to school, some people are forced to take something unpleasant, these all doesn't translate into the slavery you are bringing up) is still commonplace. But the relationship is most important, and sincerely the relationship found in scriptures between master and servant is not slavery. BTW, God went the step ahead before human civilization followed Him. no one can be bought in this Lev 25 fashion again because Christ has made us one.

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Just as the children of Israel could not be treated as servant forever, even so the gentiles now have the same right. It's funny you threaten me of prison earlier. God declared freedom when civilization was still developing in slave trade, you're late.

Here your comparison falls apart because dead people do not eat unless you know of one that does. Eating the fruit of the tree was to grant eternal life but eating the other was to grant knowledge of good and evil.

Oh poor Adam, so you apply double standards for him. I wonder where your word 'eternal' dropped from. maybe we could also drop it in front of 'knowledge of good and evil'?
It's a very simple analogy. If Adam had life before without eating the tree of life, is it not possible he had knowledge of good and evil without eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Here, you simply wish to be absurd. Unless you can demonstrate that his empire reached the Americas and Australia, then I simply have to take it that you're being unserious.

You have soon forgotten that you are the one to demonstrate evidence that king Nebu didn't know of those places you mentioned, and didn't rule them. Very convenient ba?

It is interesting how people like counting the number of times certain words appear in certain translations of a Bible. Which definition do you wish to use? And which of those definitions meets the thought expressed in e.g Lev. 25:46?

Oh you feel bullied, i've been using the authorized version all this while, remember? On your question, maybe
A person working in the service of another (especially in the household)
In a subordinate position
The A.V saw and were aware of the words 'servant' and 'slave'. They knew and you should that the word slave would not be the right translation for the personality. 900 times no be coincidence brada, servant(s) appear over 900 times, slave is once or twice. You're obviously the one in error on this.

You're free to talk to your God and ask him to come to me and perform his miracle since he knows that I'm not a very gullible person. He should put some effort into it.

Really YOU should put in the effort, you have faith.
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force
God has NOTHING to lose if you perished, you have all to lose. Be wise and repent.

Image123:

@thehomerit's unfortunate that you've failed to see what i'm saying. i've shown you that the concepts that you speak of are still in practice in different spheres in the world, and not many people are frowning at it. People are still being bought and sold, and workers are still being inherited. As you've seen, those concepts are not the main issues of life but the relationship shared despite the concepts. Footballers are bought and sold in the transfer market, not many people think too wrong of that. Workers are inherited, UBA bought some other bank during the 'consolidation' and inherited some of the workers (some considered themselves unfortunate not to be inherited in this event). If Dangote died yesterday, and willed his estate to you, you'd be inheriting a majority of his workers. This is the modern world, i'll speak more on this down this post.

Are footballers slaves? Are UBA workers slaves? Do you think they get paid? Do you think they're able to resign and go somewhere else? I really wonder how you're able to confuse slavery for labour. Or do you not know what slavery is?

Image123:

There you go again on the murder fallacy, its wrong to accuse God of murder just as ridiculous as accusing you of murdering your ducks. It's not strange you think highly of yourself and your kind, maybe its the same way chicken think of themselves. The analogy shows you that humans kill BILLIONS annually of what they cannot create without remorse. On the other hand, God created us and owns us, the earth and everything, and we are less than nothing before Him. It is His GRACE that makes us something, it's a rare privilege that He considers us, this is the Bible/truth. i guess the chickens may also feel that you need to learn how to make moral judgement, whatever that means. It's like when we are on ground and we see things so gigantic and beautifully splendid, until we're up high in an airplane and see everything as toys. You need the right perspective.

No you need the right perspective. You need to realize that once God starts commanding people to kill other people, he is an accomplice to murder.

Image123:

You're the one redefining slavery using scriptures, amazingly you do not permit that i define faith using scriptures. Check up your beloved wikipedia for description of slavery. It fully supports what i said earlier on slavery that it is a combo of being forced to work, no compensation, legality of owners to kill slaves, no escape, oppression(e.g forced sex slaves and gladiators), bad treatment and chains, slave pens.. All these factors are not combined in the biblical servant, actually some are the opposite way. The english translators of the A.V deemed it fit to describe the situation as 'servant' not 'slave' obviously because slavery would be a wrong hazy translation.

It seems you're getting confused. Do you think what you said in the preceding paragraph is what happens in UBA or other companies? Also, keep in mind what was said about how one is guilty of killing a slave in the Bible.

Image123:

We been through this already?  You're appealing to a seeming majority which is a fallacy, isn't it? Morality is relative with humans, you consider it immoral to flog a man, while this is a normal law in some parts of the world. That's why we talked about standards and God's word being the standard and arbiter. So for what purpose are you 'moral'(been curious)?

A majority? I'm talking about all humans. Where did I say that? And I've pointed out to you why the Bible is not good enough. If you think it is, then please tell me, will you kill your child for changing his religion to say Hinduism?

Image123:

I can't be told to do so! What part of this sentence don't you understand exactly? You're generalising that God would do this because He did it before, and you're denying God's faithfulness to His covenant.
Numbers 23:19  God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Psalm 89:34  My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
We live in a covenant of love and grace, whereein we are to bless even those who hate us, and love our enemies.

Are you saying he cannot command people to kill again? What are you actually saying here?

Image123:

So you see God was there alright before me. So what is the source of the animals' life? [s]How exactly did animal life jump into human life? Oh sorry, evolution right, let's skip that for more serious issues, i think?[/s]

Again, what do you mean by life? You're simply still inserting your God wherever you like.

Image123:

Good mrspecifico, but to layboys like us, 'proof' and 'evidence' are the same thing.

The I hope you now know better especially when you're speaking about scientific issues.

Image123:

So we now 'know' where your esoteric views on common issues come from (proof is not evidence, science is not physical hmmmmm). Image123 learn to remember that when discussing with Mr. thehomer aight?

Yes proof and evidence are different. Where did I say science was not physical?

Image123:

You've been v.lightly reprimanded for your 'Genesis blunder' so you're still sulking, ok ok i'll oblige you.Please i wish that we 'move on', forgive me for not allowing us to earlier.
Here's what i said ithink? Science says the most recent time is the holocene epoch(estimated to be about 11500 years ago) when 'modern humans evolved'.. It seems you don't have much pains on the holocene 10000, 11500, 12000 or whatever number comes to the imagination, but to be safe i'll give a name.

What Genesis blunder? And I notice that these numbers are far more than what is expected from the Bible.

Image123:

i hope that's clear/ Okay, then i said that's the time 'modern humans evolved' according to science?

And I hope you realize that what you're saying is different from what the people you're quoting are saying. What you've highlighting is not a biological concept but a cultural one. I also wonder why you keep saying "modern humans" as if it is a biological specie. And note that the people you're quoting say humans were present during the holocene not that they evolved then so it seems you're still unable to find someone to back up your claim.

Image123:

Your links told us that the theories on star formation were suppositions, probabilities and hypotheses. It's not my fault what your links said which you saw. Under theories, some guesses are more informed than others. This is the situation of the theories you've just presented. There's a reason why they are not laws, no? But we can practically observe germs, continental drift, electron, and 'gravitation'(gravity is a law to we layboys, it's gravitation that is a theory). Anyone can easily make informed deductions, even SS1 students. this is a world apart from star formations where we see a star 'disappear' and begin to write motion pictures about how it formed X billion years ago and became a dwarf J million years later, and the distance changed and bla bla. Stop comparing sleep with death, they are not the same though they look alike.

You are making yet another common mistake. A scientific theory does not become a law. They are both different. I'll also advice you to look up scientific laws to avoid this misconception. Actually, the law is called the universal law of gravitation while the theory of gravity is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Actually, the electron, the theory of gravity and others are the basis of the solar events I've been talking about.
You still think that a person had to have seen stars form to know but you see, based on science and reasoning, we are able to tell what happened in the past and what is to be expected. This is how science works.
The beauty of science lies in the fact that if you're so inclined, you're free to gain the basic knowledge and make your informed deductions so while SS1 students may be able to some extent, they will need more training to be better at it.

Image123:

@thehomerVery smart observation, really.

Mmmhmm. Just don't deny it when it fails to end as expected.

Image123:

i told you that "Differences are caused by unequal knowledge or understanding, not faith. ". Our knowledge comes from the word of God. i may know what they don't know, and they may also know what i don't know. But there are general truths, and there are things that i know. One person cannot know everything, no one is omniscient except God. i might know a lot about landforms even have a degree, and not know much about the human anatomy. i don't know which of the two is better understanding even though they may both have Ph.Ds in their field. But what each knows they know, and there are general truths that we can agree to, and disagree as well. Truths like Jesus is Lord, Preach the gospel, men should pray, Jesus is coming, Love God and your neighbour etc. In specifics, disagreements may come in but this should not 'divide' us. This is different from when i say Jesus is Lord and you say He is not, that's fundamental.

In other words, you think you know more than these other people on this issue?

Image123:

A scientific theory is type of theory, yes or no?

The phrase "scientific theory" has a meaning that can be quite different or may be the opposite of what is meant by the common English usage of the word "theory".

Image123:

Philippians 2:2 Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind
1Peter 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
There are several admonitions to unity and partnership in scripture. How did you miss it, i've stated why God create hell on this thread.
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
There's the original plan. God created us all to have dominion, glorify Him, please Him and serve Him.

So God made humans, intelligent humans to be his slaves? When he was doing this, did he know that some will not know this? Or did he not know that some will refuse to be slaves to anything else?

Image123:

You behaving very unserious. A circle is round shaped, and is the 'mother/root' of everything connected with round, surround and around. It's today we can talk of X-dimensional, we've developed our math and shape names. In those days, there were no such distinctions.

Of course. I wonder who the father of he ellipse is. For some reason, you refuse to accept that circles are flat and that there are no pillars holding up any part of the earth.

Image123:

Wiktionary was quoted? This is yet another irrelevant argument. Faith has been severally defined to you from the scriptures that preach it.

Go back and read the Wiktionary quote. You will note that faith does not count as evidence in the definition. Well those scriptures have been known to be wrong.

Image123:

I SAID "Maybe you said it, but didn't see it? " As in, maybe you said it, but maybe YOU didn't see it. Take your advice most carefully.

No. I saw it that was why I pointed out to you that I had already said what you were repeating. Simply go through my posts.

Image123:

But you said "Some were lying, others claim this for monetary gains, yet others may simply wish to go with the crowd then there's the group that are simply deluded and many other groups for other poor reasons.". And you won't answer if you believe such group exist that found the Bible to be divine and inspired by God. Not everyone thinks so mr.

How does that negate what I said? If someone is deluded, does that person not think their delusion is true?

Image123:

It's one of the criteria i listed from the beginning of the thread, so bring on thine comparisons?

I don't want to look at a single criterion. This is why I asked you to present what you think is the best criterion.

Image123:

Lazyyyyyyyyyyyy, you been on my neck about it all the while?

No that's not it. It is simply pragmatism based on what I've seen so far.

Image123:

Is this a poor attempt to misconstrue what i said? i didn't say the above quote, i said we can talk about actions i.e based on the Bible ofcourse. But the heart is another matter. God see the inside motive of each action, i can only go as far as the action, and tell you using scriptures whether this is wrong or right on a general level.

I simply paraphrased what you said which is what you repeated. What I understand from it is that you're able to interpret the scriptures and decide whether or not a person's actions were right or wrong. This means you should be able to tell Adeboye and others what they're doing wrong.

Image123:

We've been through this. the fact that they were not added proves that they are not scripture. If they were scriptures, they'd not have passed away as it were.

A nice circular argument. Please tell me, was there a scripture before those books were voted out? Also, those books have not passed away as I showed you.

Image123:

Here's the Leviticus 25 passage that i believe you refer to,

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begot in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.
i believe you wish to highlight the inheritance of servants. Well, the Bible is God's Word, not just two verses or a book. You should take this into cognizance in future 'study'. now, while i've shown you that the relationship is more important than the concept, the concept of maybe buying someone or inheriting someone are still practised in the world today. Even forcing of people to do things(people are forced in the military by their superiors, some parent force their ward to school, some people are forced to take something unpleasant, these all doesn't translate into the slavery you are bringing up) is still commonplace. But the relationship is most important, and sincerely the relationship found in scriptures between master and servant is not slavery. BTW, God went the step ahead before human civilization followed Him. no one can be bought in this Lev 25 fashion again because Christ has made us one.

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Just as the children of Israel could not be treated as servant forever, even so the gentiles now have the same right. It's funny you threaten me of prison earlier. God declared freedom when civilization was still developing in slave trade, you're late.

It's not a threat. It's a fact that people are not allowed to own and treat others the way it is described in the Bible. How could God have made such a moral error?

Image123:

Oh poor Adam, so you apply double standards for him. I wonder where your word 'eternal' dropped from. maybe we could also drop it in front of 'knowledge of good and evil'?
It's a very simple analogy. If Adam had life before without eating the tree of life, is it not possible he had knowledge of good and evil without eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Again, you show embarrassing ignorance of your scripture. Simply read it and you will see the reference to eternal life. Though your analogy is simple, it is a false one because he had to be alive to eat while he could be alive and not have knowledge of good and evil which is what that story was saying.

Image123:

You have soon forgotten that you are the one to demonstrate evidence that king Nebu didn't know of those places you mentioned, and didn't rule them. Very convenient ba?

And here, you try to shift the burden of proof on you. I have shown you the extent of his kingdom which would also give you an idea of what he ruled over. You are claiming that the extent was more than that therefore, you need to show that the extent was really more than described.

Image123:

Oh you feel bullied, i've been using the authorized version all this while, remember? On your question, maybe
A person working in the service of another (especially in the household)
In a subordinate position
The A.V saw and were aware of the words 'servant' and 'slave'. They knew and you should that the word slave would not be the right translation for the personality. 900 times no be coincidence brada, servant(s) appear over 900 times, slave is once or twice. You're obviously the one in error on this.

Counting words of translations is not important because what is being discussed has been outlined which is the God sanctioned way of treating other people as slaves. Though I know that many pastors try to use that to show the importance of some concepts. I wonder what they'll get by counting the occurrence of the words "The", "Lord", "is", "Died".

Image123:

Really YOU should put in the effort, you have faith.
Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force
God has NOTHING to lose if you perished, you have all to lose. Be wise and repent.

Effort? I thought he gave you a performance of a miracle. That is all I and many other ask. He knows what it'll take for us to believe. Let him do that.
Actually, God will lose everything. In fact, he seems to have lost most of humanity.
Also, please try leaving a line free for me to easily tell when one comment ends and the next begins.

Image123:

Check up your beloved wikipedia for description of slavery. It fully supports what i said earlier on slavery that it is a combo of being forced to work, no compensation, legality of owners to kill slaves, no escape, oppression(e.g forced sex slaves and gladiators), bad treatment and chains, slave pens.. All these factors are not combined in the biblical servant, actually some are the opposite way. The english translators of the A.V deemed it fit to describe the situation as 'servant' not 'slave' obviously because slavery would be a wrong hazy translation.We been through this already?  You're appealing to a seeming majority which is a fallacy, isn't it? Morality is relative with humans, you consider it immoral to flog a man, while this is a normal law in some parts of the world. That's why we talked about standards and God's word being the standard and arbiter. So for what purpose are you 'moral'(been curious)?I can't be told to do so! What part of this sentence don't you understand exactly? You're generalising that God would do this because He did it before, and you're denying God's faithfulness to His covenant.

You are being disingenuous with your translation. You do not like the negative(and well deserved) connotations of slavery, and so you are opting to use a servant instead. That is also why you are trying so hard to equivocate voluntary labor with forced labor. As if the distinguishing factor between a servant and slave are shackles and a pen. That is like equivocating violation with love making because the victim was not bound up. The distinguishing factor between a servant and slave(in English) is volition.  Did you not read the first sentence on the wiki page that defines slavery?

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.

The page then goes on to list what attributes slaves can have not attributes they must have. The vile abomination that is slavery in the Bible is painfully clear. What makes what occurs in the Bible slavery is that they are forced to tolerate/accept these things(among others):

Slaves can be beaten to death without consequence if they die after a day has passed.
The progeny of two slaves can be  the property of the master.
Slaves in perpetuity do not [/b]require compensation for their labor.
Slaves [b]can be sold at the whim of the master breaking up families.
Slaves(Females at least) are not allowed to go out in public as a male does.

under threat of violence. The only haziness would be to apply the label of servant to these individuals to hide what they really were.

Image123:

Morality is relative with humans, you consider it immoral to flog a man, while this is a normal law in some parts of the world. That's why we talked about standards and God's word being the standard and arbiter. So for what purpose are you 'moral'(been curious)?I can't be told to do so! What part of this sentence don't you understand exactly? You're generalising that God would do this because He did it before, and you're denying God's faithfulness to His covenant.

Basing morality on a book or even God's words is no less subjective. For one, what IS God that its word should be considered anymore valuable than those of anybody else.

Idehn:

Your being disingenuous with your translation. You do not like the negative(and well deserved) connotations of slavery, and so you are opting to use a servant instead. That is also why you are trying so hard to equivocate voluntary labor with forced labor. As if the distinguishing factor between a servant and slave are shackles and a pen. That is like equivocating violation with love making because the victim was not bound up. The distinguishing factor between a servant and slave(in English) is volition.  Did you not read the first sentence on the wiki page that defines slavery?

The page then goes on to list what attributes slaves can have not attributes they must have. The vile abomination that is slavery in the Bible is painfully clear. What makes what occurs in the Bible slavery is that they are forced to tolerate/accept these things(among others):

Slaves can be beaten to death without consequence if they die after a day has passed.
The progeny of two slaves can be  the property of the master.
Slaves in perpetuity do not [/b]require compensation for their labor.
Slaves [b]can be sold at the whim of the master breaking up families.
(Female) are not allowed to go out in public as a male does.

under threat of violence. The only haziness would be to apply the label of servant to these individuals to hide what they really were.

Basing morality on a book or even God's words is no less subjectivity. For one, what IS God that its word should be considered anymore valuable than those of anybody else.

Thanks again. These are the very things I've been trying to point out to Image123 but for some reason, he just doesn't seem to get it.

@thehomer

Are footballers slaves? Are UBA workers slaves? Do you think they get paid? Do you think they're able to resign and go somewhere else? I really wonder how you're able to confuse slavery for labour. Or do you not know what slavery is?

You were the one making an issue of humans been bought and sold and of others inheriting humans, until i showed you that these concepts are still in common practice. Slavery is not all about getting paid or not. There you go again with another concept, slavery is not a linear equation and life is not either. there are different factors involved, that's why i told you of what slavery implies/denotes and i even referred you to your fav wiki.

No you need the right perspective. You need to realize that once God starts commanding people to kill other people, he is an accomplice to murder.

This is a poor and biased perspective. When you command, you're held responsible for your actions. It is as if you carried them. Like when we talk of Hitler killing Jews, or Gaddaffi or Abacha. Or when we talk of what the Federal Government has done/built, we say Goodluck Jonathan or Obasanjo or Fashola or IBB did this and that. But now it's God's turn and He's accomplice.

It seems you're getting confused. Do you think what you said in the preceding paragraph is what happens in UBA or other companies? Also, keep in mind what was said about how one is guilty of killing a slave in the Bible.

i never said or thought UBA workers or other company workers are slaves in the sense you mean, what i've shown you is that they(the workers) can be inherited by other masters, and that one can actually be slaving and carry the title of a manager(but you asked that i use your definition). Here is what was said about how one is guilty of killing a servant in the Bible.

Exo 21:12  He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
Exo 21:20  And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Lev 24:17  And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.

God's standards always disgraces man's standards anyday, it would do you good to notice/find out what obtained in other nations outside Israel.

A majority? I'm talking about all humans. Where did I say that? And I've pointed out to you why the Bible is not good enough. If you think it is, then please tell me, will you kill your child for changing his religion to say Hinduism?

And i am talking about the Creator of all humans, Who is greater than all humans. Anybody can point out anything, a kid was pointing to me the other day and saying 'daddy daddy', and i'm not his daddy. i've also pointed out to you that the Bible is good enough so you pointing is invalid. And who killed his child for changing his religion to say hinduism in the Bible?

Are you saying he cannot command people to kill again? What are you actually saying here?

Not in the covenant in which we live, there is time for everything. His command for today is that you should repent and stop waiting for a sign like the Pharisees.
Acts 17:30  And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Again, what do you mean by life? You're simply still inserting your God wherever you like.

What do i mean by life ke? What do you know as life? i'm talking about the life that all living things are said to possess that makes them living things. So what is the source of life? Now see this, John 1:3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Do notice that i didn't put Him there, He was there already.

I hope you now know better especially when you're speaking about scientific issues. Yes proof and evidence are different. Where did I say science was not physical?

i now know better when discussing such with thehomer. Simply trace back our discussion on the issue.

What Genesis blunder? And I notice that these numbers are far more than what is expected from the Bible.

Aaargh, you're not a kid na. Don't you remember when you mentioned that Genesis says the earth was formed 6000years ago or something on that line? Aaah you just noticed the numbers, i'm glad to educate you in the earth sciences, it's been a displeasure. And remember like i said, those numbers differ from imagination to imagination, textbook to textbook, and person to person.

And I hope you realize that what you're saying is different from what the people you're quoting are saying. What you've highlighting is not a biological concept but a cultural one. I also wonder why you keep saying "modern humans" as if it is a biological specie. And note that the people you're quoting say humans were present during the holocene not that they evolved then so it seems you're still unable to find someone to back up your claim.

, when i said this was irrelevant, some might have thought i was shying away or something. You were literarily 'pointing a gun at my head for names'. Now you're giving excuses. When i put the quotes on "modern humans evolved", you thought we were in biology class or i mentioned something about your biology teacher? keep noting ehn, it's good for your learning. Do you even understand the concept of evolving or evolution. na wa for you o, thehomer.

You are making yet another common mistake. A scientific theory does not become a law. They are both different. I'll also advice you to look up scientific laws to avoid this misconception. Actually, the law is called the universal law of gravitation while the theory of gravity is based on Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Actually, the electron, the theory of gravity and others are the basis of the solar events I've been talking about.
You still think that a person had to have seen stars form to know but you see, based on science and reasoning, we are able to tell what happened in the past and what is to be expected. This is how science works.
The beauty of science lies in the fact that if you're so inclined, you're free to gain the basic knowledge and make your informed deductions so while SS1 students may be able to some extent, they will need more training to be better at it.

Did i mention that scientific theories and laws are the same? i thought i was saying that they are not the same, there you go thinking for me again ba? i think the history was that it was 'newton's law of gravitation' until as usual with science, flaws were discovered, then with Einstein's help it became 'theory of gravitation. Well maybe i'd look that up sometime, science books and their inconsistencies sha.
Are you really saying that electrons and gravity are the things that make people to make wild hypotheses about how star A formed B billions years ago at a distance C from the earth and a diameter D which reduced or increased(depending on the sweetness of the mouth of the Prof speaking) Emillion years later and how this star A would die in Fmillion years time. The bolded part of your post above is what i've been saying about faith, are you thinking through me yet again? You're the one who lays emphasis on seeing before believing?

Mmmhmm. Just don't deny it when it fails to end as expected.

You know my stand on this thehomer, why are you such a slave to insincerity?

@thehomer

In other words, you think you know more than these other people on this issue?

By the grace of God, on the issue of the world ending on May 21st which coincidentally is today, i'll say i know more on this issue than them. it's in the Bible that no one knows the day, but they make a calculation from Genesis 6 i think and say today is 7days from Genesis 6, that's an error. I do not condemn them, they are still christians if they have truly believed on Jesus and are saved from sin. What they lacked was proper understanding of God's Word which is clear enough on this issue. How do you decide on who is right, the Word of God is right, not man.
Psalm 18:30  As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple
God is the one that we trust, and turn our eyes on, not man. Man can fail, he's limited one way or the other. In school, you may have a student in class who fails a subject, it doesn't make him no more a student and the blame is not on the textbook.

The phrase "scientific theory" has a meaning that can be quite different or may be the opposite of what is meant by the common English usage of the word "theory".

So english language usage is common mresoteric, but you want the common usage when we are discussing 'faith' na, so a scientific theory is  type of theory, yes or no?

So God made humans, intelligent humans to be his slaves? When he was doing this, did he know that some will not know this? Or did he not know that some will refuse to be slaves to anything else?

God made humans intelligent in the first instance i.e intelligent when compared with other living things like animals and plants ofcourse. How did you miss the part that says God created us to have dominion and glorify Him? You picked on pleasing and serving God. Pleasing and serving doesn't translate to slavery. On the bolded, simulations are not always the same as real life, and man was not just like the other creations, he was created with a will of his own.

Of course. I wonder who the father of he ellipse is. For some reason, you refuse to accept that circles are flat and that there are no pillars holding up any part of the earth.

The earth's orbit is an ellipse, is this ellipse round or flat shaped? It depends on where you are standing, if you are standing on the big 'circle' you may think or rightly say flat. But if you were far away like as far as the earth is to the moon or the sun, you'd describe the shape as round or circle if you were addressing more than six billion people. The pillars of the earth i've told you, are pictorial language/metaphor to describe that there is something holding the earth or keeping it in place, from roaming off to another orbit or galaxy or system. there's something made by God that keeps it tilted at a certain angle/range and moving a particular direction and speed. Science have found other names for that now, but it's the same thing nonetheless.

Go back and read the Wiktionary quote. You will note that faith does not count as evidence in the definition. Well those scriptures have been known to be wrong.

This is a precious waste of nl space. Who says those scriptures are wrong, the federal board of atheist party?

No. I saw it that was why I pointed out to you that I had already said what you were repeating. Simply go through my posts.

Remember this? What you saw was that 'Science doesn't do proofs because it relies on evidence. You get proofs in mathematics and logic. Science is much broader than that.' But all glory be to God, it seems you now see that maths is an integral science, and actually used to solve so many scientific problems. Anyway, whatever you say next on this you're right okay, YOU ARE RIGHT. Let's cut the irrelevancies.

How does that negate what I said? If someone is deluded, does that person not think their delusion is true?

The deluded thinks it's true, but it doesn't rule out the fact that there is a true group that has found the word of God to be divine and true.

I don't want to look at a single criterion. This is why I asked you to present what you think is the best criterion.

that's why i never presented you with a single criterion, i gave you criteria why i see the Word of God as divine. You may scroll back to the beginnings of our discussions on this thread.

No that's not it. It is simply pragmatism based on what I've seen so far.

Have some faith, atleast you do when it comes to star formation.

I simply paraphrased what you said which is what you repeated. What I understand from it is that you're able to interpret the scriptures and decide whether or not a person's actions were right or wrong. This means you should be able to tell Adeboye and others what they're doing wrong.

That's a very poor paraphrase then. Anyone who is born again has the ability to interpret scripture and decide whether a person's actions were right or wrong. This of course is based on the scriptures.

A nice circular argument. Please tell me, was there a scripture before those books were voted out? Also, those books have not passed away as I showed you.

If you mean to ask if there were scriptures before the council of nicea and co, yes there was scriptures. If those books have not passed away, they'd be in my Bible. You can't sieve out Genesis or vote out Leviticus, not you not pdp not the UN not the internet, no one or council.

It's not a threat. It's a fact that people are not allowed to own and treat others the way it is described in the Bible. How could God have made such a moral error?

If you know anything about slavery, you'd know that the Biblical relationship of a servant and master is actually love when compared with what obtained in heathen nations around, the world over. When God sent Jesus to die and make heathen and Jews one and gave no more room for what obtained in Lev 25, it took the world more than 1500 years after to abolish slavery and they are still at it till date. You're late, God never made an error. Man always has to blame God for his inadequacies. God made man to have dominion over animals and co, Adam fell from this glorious position. From the beginning it was not so, it's man's wicked imaginations that brought slavery, God actually limited slavery until He sent His Son Jesus who brought the grace and the power to man to live a 'civilised' life.

Again, you show embarrassing ignorance of your scripture. Simply read it and you will see the reference to eternal life. Though your analogy is simple, it is a false one because he had to be alive to eat while he could be alive and not have knowledge of good and evil which is what that story was saying.

You're only believing what you want to believe. You should have known from that simple analogy that 'the tree of life' and 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' refer to something different from the common usage of the words 'life' and 'knowledge of good and evil'. So he had to be alive to eat/before eating the tree of life but couldn't have knowledge to eat/before eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil ba? double standards, insincerity.

And here, you try to shift the burden of proof on you. I have shown you the extent of his kingdom which would also give you an idea of what he ruled over. You are claiming that the extent was more than that therefore, you need to show that the extent was really more than described.

i've shown you and will re-show you what i believe.
Daniel 2:38  And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
You have glibly insisted that it is wheresoever the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven dwell. i told you that the world known to Nebuchadnezzar was ruled by him. But you said he didn't know so and so places. you're the one to show proof that he didn't know or rule such a place. And then the prophecy fell right in place remember?

Counting words of translations is not important because what is being discussed has been outlined which is the God sanctioned way of treating other people as slaves. Though I know that many pastors try to use that to show the importance of some concepts. I wonder what they'll get by counting the occurrence of the words "The", "Lord", "is", "Died".

And what is being discussed doesn't qualify as slavery. Stop wondering about pastors, you're still having issues thinking my thoughts for me, don't add more to our burden. Stop being so heavy laden, Jesus wants to give you rest. When the word slave(s) appears less than 5 times, and the word servant(s) appears over 900 times in a book, it's not unimportant especially when you insist on replacing the word 'servant' with 'slave' every single time. Get sincere and serious please.

Effort? I thought he gave you a performance of a miracle. That is all I and many other ask. He knows what it'll take for us to believe. Let him do that.
Actually, God will lose everything. In fact, he seems to have lost most of humanity.
Also, please try leaving a line free for me to easily tell when one comment ends and the next begins.

A performance of a miracle? No. i didn't need a miracle to be saved, i simply believed and was saved.

Acts 16:30  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

God has nothing to lose, you have all to lose. Look at it again here below'

Luke 13:2  And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
Luke 13:3  I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:4  Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
Luke 13:5  I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
The ball is in your court as it were, you too can be saved today.