Raider5678

Yes, we actually do. They're called prisoners of war.

Prisoners also don't want to be prisoners. Is it wrong to put people in prison? Other then for breaking the law, slaves sold themselves into slavery. Willingly.

Clicked the link and #1: Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. Read farther, Cain is cursed because he murdered his brother. It's not saying "there you go. Just kill whoever." I'm not even gonna try to debunk the rest if the first one is that stupid. Leviticus is not a person, it's the name of the book, glad to see how much you know about what you're criticizing so heavily. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/800-what-about-the-bible-and-slavery

And again, no you can't. You can't just say the bible allows something when it doesn't. Look at my entire previous post about slavery. No. Do I want to work the rest of my life? No. Your point? Again. You can't just randomly kidnap someone and force them to be your slave. That. Is. Wrong. Even in the bible. The person who becomes a slave by being sold, sells themselves. Those who are forced, are only forced to because they stole someone from the person they're a slave to and couldn't pay them back.

No, it's not what I think. But I also don't see how saying I get my morals from the bible means atheists aren't able to be moral. And so your only complaint about the bible saying to give to the poor, is that there are some rich people who claim their Christians and don't give to the poor? Are you serious? If the person chooses to sell themselves you can, yeah. It's not like you can just kidnap them and sell them. Also, guess who gets the money when you buy a slave? The slave. No, it doesn't. The verse people commonly quote to say it does, Exodus 21:7, is taken way out of context. And I'm getting tired of the context debate. If I am a lawyer, I have to look at the whole law. I can't take one sentence from it and then start yelling about how it's ridiculous. Same common sense applies here.

Here comes the fun part. The Bible says slaves that can get away from their masters they are to be set free(Deuteronomy 23:15-16), if you injure a slave you have to set them free(Exodus 21:26-27), and slaves cannot be forced to work every day of the week, they get days off(Exodus 20:10), and they could own their own home, have a wife and kid of their own, they could not be sold(Leviticus 25:39-43), and you couldn't be severe with your slaves (Leviticus 25:39-43). Additionally, the slave's kids are not yours and neither is his wife if he gets them while he's serving you. Now, those are what applies to ALL slaves. Slaves who are Hebrew have to be released after 7 years, while all the slaves in the entire land have to be freed every 50 years. I'll admit, that's a bit racist. Also, the bible doesn't let you just kidnap a slave. If someone steals from you and doesn't have enough money to pay you back for your items, they are your slave. If someone becomes impoverished and offers themselves up as a slave, then you can buy them. Sailing across the ocean and kidnapping Africans? Not okay. Also, the impoverished aren't being taken advantage of here to become slaves, because the tithes to the church in the old testament were used to feed the poor(Deuteronomy 14:28-29). They also weren't trapped with loans by rich people making interest, because they weren't allowed to charge interest on loans(Exodus 22:25).

That would be God. Through the Bible.

No.

If you add more context and the interpretation changes, I feel like the second interpretation would be more accurate. Your interpretations were based on the website and what it said, and most of those were taken out of context. If I looked at some scientific article, picked out individual statements, and then stated how I PERSONALLY interpreted it, context would trump me. Same logic applies. Romans basically outlines who the law applies to. There's nothing in the bible that says some people shouldn't be following stuff in romans. Romans basically says you should know what it says, but you don't have to follow it because things have changed since Jesus died.

Appropriate context is IMO the entire section you're looking at, and the chapters around it. When it gets to the point that reading the verses before/after don't change your logical conclusion because they no longer pertain to the subject, you have found the appropriate context. Basically, this definition from google: con·text ˈkäntekst/ noun the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. The bible tells you. Look at the Book of Romans. Outlines it pretty clearly.

Yeah. It's those stinking jews fault, they shouldn't have moved to Europe in the first place. Spreading religion is bad. While you believe that, I'll continue to believe that Nazi's shouldn't have been killing Jews in the first place. Also, the holocaust included more than just Jews. You're talking about ethnic cleansing. Perhaps you're saying different races should be blamed for having moved? Most of those are taken out of context. Like this one: Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7) Jesus said that back in a sarcastic manner. Reading the verses around it reveals context which helps point it out. Also, the guy who owns that website is a crackpot. He believes Hitler was a Christian as well, and when historians criticised him about it(nonchristian historians) he basically called them all blind idiots. He has his own sets of belief, and they won't be changed by evidence. He also picks and chooses his own evidence, ignoring contrary points. ANd he loves to take things out of context, sometimes even dropping words from the scripture without mentioning it, and then being like "one or two words don't make that much of a difference". Anyways, this is off topic. The short point is, this guy isn't credible. Even if you aren't a Christian. Also, this: Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. That particular verse is talking about the commandments God gave Moses. You know. The 10 commandments. The "Thou shall not lie" stuff. Additionally, the book of Romans is a very good book to read if you're wondering why we don't follow all of the old law. It explains it very clearly.

Why is it negative? Why do you get to choose if it's negative or not? Are you seriously telling me that a white person running a soup kitchen in a poor black neighborhood in the name of Christ is a negative? Really?

You implied it. When I said religion crossed boundaries more then it makes them you responded with:

You're overcomplicating this. There are religious boundaries, nobody is arguing that. Christians/Muslims/Hindus But the point is that most religions cross boundaries regardless of race/social status/location I mean, sure, you can probably make the argument that crossing boundaries between groups are bad, but that will require some serious mental gymnastics. And so many other things create boundaries as well, and DON"T cross any. Race, social status, money, location, etc.

Christianity has crossed every racial boundary so far. Does that not count? Why does religion have to form boundaries for it to be considered a religion to you?

I don't believe that. More often then naught religion forms groups that CROSS the boundaries that you think are intertwined with religion, not create them.

The Pharisees practiced those actions as well. There is a story that's quite well known to Christians. One day Jesus was upon the Mount of Olives, and came down to the temple. People gathered around him to hear him teach. While he was teaching them, a group of Pharisees showed up with an adulterous woman and placed her in front of Jesus. "Teacher", they say to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?" They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” “No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

Okay, there are a lot of people who say Hitler was a Christian. However, the majority of actual historians agree he was not a Christian. The Hiter was a Christian myth was popularized on youtube. Now, don't get me wrong, I know you didn't get this from youtube because we both know better. However whoever you heard it from probably did. That too. Ultimately, Christians and Atheists have both done bad things. Christianity has CAUSED a lot of bad things because it's an ideology. It's also CAUSED a lot of good things. Atheism has caused diddly squat. So we can't blame anything on it except the nonbelief in a god/gods.

To be fair, however, the crusades were pretty bad. Just saying.

Who cares? The Democratic party was doing under the table BS and got caught redhanded. They decided to deny and then cover it up. The Republican party was doing under the table BS and got caught redhanded. They decided to deny and then cover it up. The "Trump-Russia collusion" question is pretty much only a question because it worked in his favor.

According to the polls, only 4% of the population supported desegregation. Yet, 10.5% of the population was African American. Now, I understand not all African Americans supported it, but surely you're telling me that the combined total of everyone in the U.S. who supported desegregation was less then half the total African American population?

Considering 10.5% of the population was African American at the time, I suggest the margin of error was considerably higher.....

That kind of stuff interests me. I think I'll look for it. Tell me if you find it please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Proposal_and_ratification It requires so much more than Congress to amend the constitution, my friend.

In the U.S, in order to amend the constitution, it requires a 2/3 vote. It passed.