Honest Conversation Starter for Rich2022

[Sefan]

Correction
Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Unfortunately for you, the Greek word "δοῦλοι" is here and most other places in the NT translated as "slave" or at least "bondservant".
After you get a real education, you might have some credibility. You have none now. Since you are mostly ignorant of Biblical things, you don't know that there are three times the word is translated as "slave", and there have been long fierce debates about whether the NT (known to all real scholars) endorses slavery. When you get beyond your first semester, you may learn about this long historic debate :

"Ephesians 6:5 reads,
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
Colossians 3:22 reads,
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”
1 Peter 2:18 reads,
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

You forget it is not an old age debate but you called on me to show how far back men started creating legal. And I said legal then was based on Natural Laws and Natural Rights and not dependent on the wishes and desires of men who could kill and destroy other men and the society now called politicians and cabals

I forgot nothing. Too bad you forgot that YOU MADE IT AN OLD age debate by making the claim that the first laws were made in Roman law.  
YOU said :

And Roman legal is the oldest of all man made laws and all other places copied from them.

I called on you to do no such thing. You're lying. It's "the Roman legal system" not "Roman legal", (when you take English and learn to write correctly).
What you ignorantly and falsely claimed was proven to be totally wrong, as was your rubbish about the Twelve Tablets. Your false claim also exposed the fact you basically don't even know the first thing about human history.

Which is why we see every expression of Natural Law and Natural Right eg.

This is not a sentence in the English language. It means nothing, and is not referenced.
You're not really going to make it even out of college, if you can't even write an English sentence.

Damnum non facit qui iur suo uttitur - Harms no one, he who exercises his lawful rights.

See above. It means nothing, and is out of context.

Culpa ubi non est, nec poena esse debet- Where there is no guilt, there is no punishment.

Pointless drivel. See above

And the famous 
Volenti non fit injuria- Acting voluntarily, no harm was done.

And what is the point ? You can copy-paste Latin ?
This is your first debate isn't it ?

The Jews did not speak Greek.

you came to say that there was another place with another older date, thus proving my point that on a certain day men woke up and created legal.

I called on you to do no such thing . You're lying .

Denying your own words now that you have run out ground, eh? See you below

...Oh . all assertions and no evidence. ..

Prove it. 
You're not very good at this. Is this your first debate ?
No more unsupported assertions (claims) from you without evidence. 
You are dismissed unless you support what you claim with evidence or support . Do you even know what that means ?

Gotcha!

The Romans do not speak English language as their major language but I understand, this is you confessing that you know nothing on law, as I impliedly told you in the beginning.

[Bucky Ball]

If it really were from any real god, it would be for everyone on the planet.

It's strange that we think that.

We know that El Elyon, Yahweh's father (in the Babylonian pantheon) gave Israel to Yahweh, (in Deuteronomy)
however modern day religionists claim Yahweh is "God' of everyone". So why is it that that seems "strange" to you ?

[Bucky Ball]

Unfortunately for you, the Greek word "δοῦλοι" is here and most other places in the NT translated as "slave" or at least "bondservant".
After you get a real education, you might have some credibility. You have none now. Since you are mostly ignorant of Biblical things, you don't know that there are three times the word is translated as "slave", and there have been long fierce debates about whether the NT (known to all real scholars) endorses slavery. When you get beyond your first semester, you may learn about this long historic debate :

"Ephesians 6:5 reads,
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
Colossians 3:22 reads,
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”
1 Peter 2:18 reads,
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”


I forgot nothing. Too bad you forgot that YOU MADE IT AN OLD age debate by making the claim that the first laws were made in Roman law.  
YOU said :


I called on you to do no such thing. You're lying. It's "the Roman legal system" not "Roman legal", (when you take English and learn to write correctly).
What you ignorantly and falsely claimed was proven to be totally wrong, as was your rubbish about the Twelve Tablets. Your false claim also exposed the fact you basically don't even know the first thing about human history.


This is not a sentence in the English language. It means nothing, and is not referenced.
You're not really going to make it even out of college, if you can't even write an English sentence.


See above. It means nothing, and is out of context.


Pointless drivel. See above


And what is the point ? You can copy-paste Latin ?
This is your first debate isn't it ?

The Jews did not speak Greek.

you came to say that there was another place with another older date, thus proving my point that on a certain day men woke up and created legal.

I called on you to do no such thing . You're lying .

Denying your own words now that you have run out ground, eh? See you below

...Oh . all assertions and no evidence. ..

Prove it. 
You're not very good at this. Is this your first debate ?
No more unsupported assertions (claims) from you without evidence. 
You are dismissed unless you support what you claim with evidence or support . Do you even know what that means ?

Gotcha!

The Romans do not speak English language as their major language but I understand, this is you confessing that you know nothing on law, as I impliedly told you in the beginning.

LMAO.
Total bullshit.
Everyone knows *some" Jews did not speak Greek, however, unfortunately for you, Hellenization of the Levant was in process, and in fact they did speak Greek.

"Created legal" means nothing in English. Can't you get a grammar checker ?
I'm confessing nothing.
Lying for Jebus is still lying.
Lying is against your "natural law".
Are you always this evil ?

I PROVED that what you said about Roman law was false. Get over it.
Whether they spoke English is irrelevant. Are you always this bad at debate ? Historians know when law codes were established. You were 100 % incorrect.
What ? Your Jebus has not granted you the humility and grace to admit when you're wrong ?
What a fucking hypocrite. As always ... and you are simply the latest in a VERY long line, you people are fake hypocrites.
Praise Jebus I actually don't have to deal with anyone as fake and evil as you are.
Crawl back into you hole.
LMAO. You are dismissed. Buh Bye.

[Rhythmcs]

Right off the bat I'd have to mention that I don't give very much credence to what religious nuts have to say about anything - the things they say about their gods are as silly as the things they say about morality. I'd suggest that particular bit of nonsense has more to do with claims of universal earthly authority than the character of their gods (and even jesus) as we find them in magic books. More broadly, ethnocentric gods are the rule..not the exception. Then, finally, from a purely rational point of view, why couldn't gods be real and ethnocentric - as they're so often described to be?

[Sefan]

History isn't one of my strong suits, but I'm like 99% certain that is false.

The following is a partial list taken from Wikipedia's list of ancient legal codes in chronological order:

• Code of Urukagina (2380–2360 BCE)
  
• Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BCE). Copies with slight variations found in Nippur, Sippar and Ur
  
• Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BCE)
  
• Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BCE)
  
• Babylonian law - Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE in middle chronology)
  
• Hittite laws, also known as the 'Code of the Nesilim' (developed c. 1650–1500 BCE, in effect until c. 1100 BCE)
  
• Law of Moses / Torah (10th–6th century BCE) - Halakha (Jewish religious law, including biblical law and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions)
  
• Assyrian law, also known as the Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) or the Code of the Assyrians/Assura (developed c. 1450–1250 BCE, oldest extant copy c. 1075 BCE)
  
• Draconian constitution (late 7th century BCE)
  
• Solonian Constitution (early 6th century BCE)
  
• Gortyn code (5th century BCE)
  
• Twelve Tables of Roman Law (451 BCE)
  

Can you explain how 10 sets of laws that came hundreds of years BEFORE the Romans, were copied from the Romans?

As long as they have dates, it proves my case that men created legal laws

[Bucky Ball]

The following is a partial list taken from Wikipedia's list of ancient legal codes in chronological order:

• Code of Urukagina (2380–2360 BCE)
  
• Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BCE). Copies with slight variations found in Nippur, Sippar and Ur
  
• Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BCE)
  
• Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BCE)
  
• Babylonian law - Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE in middle chronology)
  
• Hittite laws, also known as the 'Code of the Nesilim' (developed c. 1650–1500 BCE, in effect until c. 1100 BCE)
  
• Law of Moses / Torah (10th–6th century BCE) - Halakha (Jewish religious law, including biblical law and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions)
  
• Assyrian law, also known as the Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) or the Code of the Assyrians/Assura (developed c. 1450–1250 BCE, oldest extant copy c. 1075 BCE)
  
• Draconian constitution (late 7th century BCE)
  
• Solonian Constitution (early 6th century BCE)
  
• Gortyn code (5th century BCE)
  
• Twelve Tables of Roman Law (451 BCE)
  

Can you explain how 10 sets of laws that came hundreds of years BEFORE the Romans, were copied from the Romans?

As long as they have dates, it proves my case that men created legal laws

Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.
"Men created laws".
No shit Sherlock. LMAO

The dates also prove you were WRONG about Roman laws being first.
LMAO
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Deesse23]

The following is a partial list taken from Wikipedia's list of ancient legal codes in chronological order:

• Code of Urukagina (2380–2360 BCE)
  
• Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BCE). Copies with slight variations found in Nippur, Sippar and Ur
  
• Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BCE)
  
• Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BCE)
  
• Babylonian law - Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE in middle chronology)
  
• Hittite laws, also known as the 'Code of the Nesilim' (developed c. 1650–1500 BCE, in effect until c. 1100 BCE)
  
• Law of Moses / Torah (10th–6th century BCE) - Halakha (Jewish religious law, including biblical law and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions)
  
• Assyrian law, also known as the Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) or the Code of the Assyrians/Assura (developed c. 1450–1250 BCE, oldest extant copy c. 1075 BCE)
  
• Draconian constitution (late 7th century BCE)
  
• Solonian Constitution (early 6th century BCE)
  
• Gortyn code (5th century BCE)
  
• Twelve Tables of Roman Law (451 BCE)
  

Can you explain how 10 sets of laws that came hundreds of years BEFORE the Romans, were copied from the Romans?

As long as they have dates, it proves my case that men created legal laws

Ignorant troll

And Roman legal is the oldest of all man made laws and all other places copied from them.

[Sefan]

This one says "ye shall not oppress one another"; Leviticus 25:17

And this is not for Hebrews alone but for everyone in the land of Israel

That's what you think it -should- be.....but...you may not be quite as ethnocentric in your pronouncements as those authors were.

Let's explore that.  Why do you think it should be your interpretation of that verse, rather than sociopolitical reality of that verse, or some possibility where god itself said it and meant it in explicitly ethnocentric terms?

Why, further down, should we not oppress each other -or- anyone else?  Is there something wrong with oppressing people, any people?  What?

Because, since God is Good, then that is His interpretation!
That is why I love Christ's Answer. If you think it is good to be oppressed, then oppress.

But know this, when thou art oppressed, ye have no right to remedy, for thou didst agree to the law of oppression.

[Sefan]

@Rhythmcs

If the Law was applied to you, would you call it good!

Eg The Law on Contracts says all agreements must be upheld (pacta sunt servanda), so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

[Rhythmcs]

Isn't that just another opportunity to ask the same question? You prefer an interpretation because it is good, but what does that mean? Good by reference to what? Is god subject to some fact or reality of what is good?

-In answer to your question, you'd have to be more specific. There are lots of laws, not all of them are good laws, so, conceivably a law being applied to me could go either way. I don't..for example, believe that all contracts must be can be or even should be upheld. Neither do our legal systems. There's a category called unenforceable and/or illegal contracts.

You can't..for example, sell yourself into slavery, and no court here will hear any garbage from a man coming to them with such a contract seeking redress from you to that effect.

[Bucky Ball]

That's what you think it -should- be.....but...you may not be quite as ethnocentric in your pronouncements as those authors were.

Let's explore that.  Why do you think it should be your interpretation of that verse, rather than sociopolitical reality of that verse, or some possibility where god itself said it and meant it in explicitly ethnocentric terms?

Why, further down, should we not oppress each other -or- anyone else?  Is there something wrong with oppressing people, any people?  What?

Because, since God is Good, then that is His interpretation!
That is why I love Christ's Answer. If you think it is good to be oppressed, then oppress.

But know this, when thou art oppressed, ye have no right to remedy, for thou didst agree to the law of oppression.

i love it when the Jebus freaks give up and just start their preaching bullshit.

BTW Sefan, preaching is a bannable offense. Are you preaching at us ? LOL
Can't your Jebus find someone better than you ?

[Bucky Ball]

@Rhythmcs

If the Law was applied to you, would you call it good!

Eg The Law on Contracts says all agreements must be upheld (pacta sunt servanda), so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

Snort.
He thinks if he says it in Latin, then he's all special.
LMAO.

[Deesse23]

@Rhythmcs

If the Law was applied to you, would you call it good!

Eg The Law on Contracts says all agreements must be upheld (pacta sunt servanda), so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

Snort.
He thinks if he says it in Latin, then he's all special.
LMAO.

Yes, and it wasnt even part of the Roman law. Its just a modern concept, cloaked in Latin, the language of law and medicine.
But why would Sefan know any of that.
He is dumb as a pole, and a liar.

[airportkid]

Why is it that god's most ardent defenders on this board are so colossally incompetent, incoherent, obnoxious, and thoroughly devastate their own arguments?  One would think a god would find better representation, if a god had power, foresight, wisdom, and so on.  The representation actually indulged is the best case against a god even existing, very much like actually reading a bible is the best persuasion against the entirety of religion - to educated, compassionate minds.

[Minimalist]

"God" is one shitty judge of character!

[Dancefortwo]

The following is a partial list taken from Wikipedia's list of ancient legal codes in chronological order:

• Code of Urukagina (2380–2360 BCE)
  
• Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BCE). Copies with slight variations found in Nippur, Sippar and Ur
  
• Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BCE)
  
• Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BCE)
  
• Babylonian law - Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE in middle chronology)
  
• Hittite laws, also known as the 'Code of the Nesilim' (developed c. 1650–1500 BCE, in effect until c. 1100 BCE)
  
• Law of Moses / Torah (10th–6th century BCE) - Halakha (Jewish religious law, including biblical law and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions)
  
• Assyrian law, also known as the Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) or the Code of the Assyrians/Assura (developed c. 1450–1250 BCE, oldest extant copy c. 1075 BCE)
  
• Draconian constitution (late 7th century BCE)
  
• Solonian Constitution (early 6th century BCE)
  
• Gortyn code (5th century BCE)
  
• Twelve Tables of Roman Law (451 BCE)
  

Can you explain how 10 sets of laws that came hundreds of years BEFORE the Romans, were copied from the Romans?

As long as they have dates, it proves my case that men created legal laws

"men created legal laws.......

........and men created religious laws too. 


All those ancient legal laws listed above intertwined with religious laws. There was little to differenciate between religious law and legal laws in some of those ancient codes.  The division of church and state wasn't a concept then.  The Code of Hammurabi was given to Hammurabi by the solar deity, Shamash. ....or so it's claimed. The Ten Commandments was given to Moses by the wind and war god, YHWH...or so it's claimed.  
  

You're replying with preaching platitudes which is nothing more than a claim and circular reasoning.  The Bible and it's mythical god sure as hell is fine with slavery.  Once again it's NOT a bondsman situation, it's humans owning other humans; bying and selling them. The Bible is as far from being a book of morality as one can get.  It's one of the most violent books ever written and it's god is a blood thirsty  genocidal butcher who loves the aroma of human flesh burning. 

Exodus 29-25:  Afterward take the various breads from their hands, and burn them on the altar along with the burnt offering. It is a pleasing aroma to the LORD, a special gift for him

How ironic and horrifying that Nazis also liked the smell of burning flesh.

[Rhythmcs]

Why is it that god's most ardent defenders on this board are so colossally incompetent, incoherent, obnoxious, and thoroughly devastate their own arguments?  

Because the shamans and witchdoctors who sent them out to find more marks don't respect them enough to give them a solid pitch.

[Rhythmcs]

Exodus 29-25:  Afterward take the various breads from their hands, and burn them on the altar along with the burnt offering. It is a pleasing aroma to the LORD, a special gift for him

How ironic and horrifying that Nazis also liked the smell of burning flesh.

I think what we're looking at there, is a man who likes barbecue and biscuits trying to imagine what a god would like.

[Sefan]

I denied it and you saw I told you to blame "your" evil bible for that. 

Stop bullshitting. I am an atheist. I have no bible.
So we are finished, you deny what the bible clearly and plainly states: That you can own another human being as property, and pass it down to your children.
You are a liar. Your god doesnt like liars.
Want to post your beloved KJV rules for slavery? ...you know the part where it says how "they shall be your possession" or "be your bondmen forever"? Have you even read your BS KJV bible? Or maybe Exodus 21, where is explains in painful detail how to enslave your fellow Hebrews, forever?

Having denied that God did not command the doing of slavery, therefore the reasonable question is the good (moral) He was doing?

Do you english?

Answer: Providing Law to control and regulate the labour relationship.

Ah, now its not slavery, its a "labor relationship". Want to be my "employee", so i can beat the shit out of you and pass you down to my children, as condoned by your bible?
So that i can have your daughter as a sex slave?

Why is it that your god could order "thou shalt not eat shellfish", but was impotent to say "dont own other human beings as property"?

You call paying off of debts owed in a contract immoral?

I call owning a human being as property immoral
You dont
and you deny its in the Bible
That makes you not only a liar but an immoral thug.

That clearly proves how deficient your moral meter is!

I am not defending slavery, you are.
I am not denying my holy book condones it, you are.
But i have another meter, that just went crazy when i read your dishonest BS

If not, you would have seen how people are willingly offering themselves up to serve other human beings. No force or duress.

You dont even know why you are an immoral thug, right? Just as you dont have the faintest clue about (objective) morality.
What are you doing here, parading your ignorance and dishonesty around? Is that a kink of yours?

You call owning a human being as a property immoral

And Yet you offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to work in whichever organization you work for 

You have no morality

[Dānu]

[retracted]

[Rhythmcs]

You call owning a human being as a property immoral

And Yet you offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to work in whichever organization you work for 

You have no morality

-and before you posted that, people would have simply assumed you understood the difference between employment and property.  

Just think, you'll never get that back again. It will color everyones perception of you, and harm whatever very important message you came here to deliver..which doesn't appear to have anything to do with morality.

Think that might be bad?

[Sefan]

Stop bullshitting. I am an atheist. I have no bible.

Does it matter if you are an atheist or not?

As long as you are raising the issue from a publicly known document generally called the Bible which has both the good and bad one.

[Thingymebob]

Stop bullshitting. I am an atheist. I have no bible.
So we are finished, you deny what the bible clearly and plainly states: That you can own another human being as property, and pass it down to your children.
You are a liar. Your god doesnt like liars.
Want to post your beloved KJV rules for slavery? ...you know the part where it says how "they shall be your possession" or "be your bondmen forever"? Have you even read your BS KJV bible? Or maybe Exodus 21, where is explains in painful detail how to enslave your fellow Hebrews, forever?

Do you english?

Ah, now its not slavery, its a "labor relationship". Want to be my "employee", so i can beat the shit out of you and pass you down to my children, as condoned by your bible?
So that i can have your daughter as a sex slave?

Why is it that your god could order "thou shalt not eat shellfish", but was impotent to say "dont own other human beings as property"?


I call owning a human being as property immoral
You dont
and you deny its in the Bible
That makes you not only a liar but an immoral thug.

I am not defending slavery, you are.
I am not denying my holy book condones it, you are.
But i have another meter, that just went crazy when i read your dishonest BS


You dont even know why you are an immoral thug, right? Just as you dont have the faintest clue about (objective) morality.
What are you doing here, parading your ignorance and dishonesty around? Is that a kink of yours?

You call owning a human being as a property immoral

And Yet you offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to work in whichever organization you work for 

You have no morality

No employer ever owns a member of it's workforce.
An employee is free to leave when the contracted hours are completed, free to look for new employment and free to take time off for holidays.
Don't be a dickhead trying to make excuses for your slavery backing backward religion.

[Sefan]

Isn't that just another opportunity to ask the same question?  You prefer an interpretation because it is good, but what does that mean?  Good by reference to what?  Is god subject to some fact or reality of what is good?

-In answer to your question, you'd have to be more specific.  There are lots of laws, not all of them are good laws, so, conceivably a law being applied to me could go either way.  I don't..for example, believe that all contracts must be can be or even should be upheld.  Neither do our legal systems.  There's a category called unenforceable and/or illegal contracts.

You can't..for example, sell yourself into slavery, and no court here will hear any garbage from a man coming to them with such a contract seeking redress from you to that effect.

I laid ONLY ONE LAW for you to determine whether it is good or evil to you, to wit "Pay for services rendered/work done".

so do you think good that your boss or customer should not pay you for work done?

[epronovost]

You call owning a human being as a property immoral

And Yet you offer yourself up to be possessed by another person like a property everyday even joyfully too eg by offering yourself to work in whichever organization you work for 

You have no morality

Contractual work in a free market isn't possessing someone. It's possessing the fruit of their work not their person. A slave isn't just a person working for another one. It's also a distinct legal status. A slave cannot break the bond that links them to their master, but a contractual worker can. A slave has no right to ownership yet an employee does. A slave can be sold, traded, gifted and inherited like any other piece of property on the whims of a master such is not the case for a slave. A slave as a different level of legal protection and civil liberties which is not the case for an employee. 

By attempting to shield your favorite book from criticism, you are producing apologetics for one of the worst type of systematic abuse and oppression man has designed. Know you battle. Nobody in our day and age would tolerate the morality and legal systems of the Ancient Hebrew. It's simply too harsh, authoritarian, unfair, unequal, ineffective and anti-democratic for our sensibilities and our level of education.