example of ahteist lying through his teeth

The atheists on carm hate my guts. This is especially true of those I would call "the God hater club." not all atheists bu the hate group segment. They will not hesitate to just lie their little heads off. This a good example of the kind of lies they use to vilify me. Not just me of cousre but all Chrsitains.

In the past year I had giant acrimonious arguments with them over slavery in the Bible. My position was that God allows a slow social evolution because God is into social progress. He doesn't force truth upon us he lets us come to it conceptional. Thus Israel started with slavery then outgrew it. The Bible haters can't see that and can't allow people to think that way. So they pretend like anything short of burning bibles is tacit support for slavery. I argued based upon Glen Miller's Christian think tank and material he researched that Slavery in ancient Isreael was not the same as slavery in Antebellum South in USA. Of course they turn that into the lie that I'm supporting slavery. We had a dispute over a source, I got the original on Google books and proved obviously and conclusively that source says what I just said that ancient near east did not have the kind of slave society they did in Southern USA. This guy comes along and lies through his teeth claiming that I actually made the up quotes and edited the stuff to say what I wanted it it. You can't edit Google book like you can Wikipedia.


Originally Posted by Metacrock

why don't you try to actually answer the issues on Gernsy showing that the ANE didn't have the kind of slavery that the Ante bellum south did. stop depending upon Hakkore and other sto do all your thinking and heavy lifting try doing some your self.

answer the moral social evolution argument while you are at it. do you need that expalined? O course you do.

I argued that people in the Bronze age weren't ready for modern democracy so God had to bring them along a bit at a time. that's what Israel was for. It was just a little better than it's neighbors but it kept going forward so they were brought up to higher levels of social understanding.

Maybe you should let some people who been to college discuss this stuff just sit in the corner until we are finished.

Leonardo:

Heh-heh. Any time you can show Israel was 'a little better' in 'levels of social understanding' than Dynastic Egypt, feel free to do so.

Nonprofit:

Meta is lying to you of course. There was a long thread on this (slavery in the ANE) where Metacrock was shown to have selectively edited quotes (without any indication he had snipped parts) to mak ethem appear to be defending his position. The reality is they were against his position but that didn't stop Meta!

Here's the URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=nCbmfvg_quwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true

Look at pages 1-2. The  contex tis the distinction bewteen society with slaves and a slave society. The sotuern US before civil war as a slave society. What does he say on page 2 about the ancinet near east?

Meta:

"...societies of the ancinet near east do not meet his criteria (for slave society) nor does most of the territory that made up the Roman empire in its prime..." (page 2).[1]

the place that does is the American south.

Look a the link.I dont' own Google books, how did I get that edited up?

another thing he might be referring to is my cutting and pasting of Millers quotes from Christian think tank. They made a big thing of me using them at the time as though they are a priori no good. Miller is a fine researcher, they are good quotes nothing wrong with using them. I did not edit them but cut and pasted. These guys don't know a valid edit form a bad one anyway, that's because they are too lazy to look it up. So if hey see ellipsis in a quote they assume I took out "not" and so on.

here's Miller's stuff:

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Now Nonprofit adds more information to it:

he links to this:

 http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?140039-sources-on-slavery-in-ancinet-world&p=4127808#post4127808

again, since I have no control over Google books, I provided the original so you can compare. what's the problem? I didn't take liberties with it. they aer valid edits. If any. you can see the original.

I remember this. this is just a simple lie by Skyjerker who also doesn't understand something:

Nonprofit:

Something is not right here. Are you just playing dumb?

I have posted it a dozen times! You know... the one you quickly edited out of your own cut-n-paste. Do you lack the integrity to even admit to it or even acknowledge the quote?

Here one more time just for nostalgia. From a work of 22 scholars (which you yourself quoted) "History of Ancient Near Eastern Law" we find this quote

"Slaves were generally afforded protection from Excessive Physical punishment. Even chattel slaves appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection"

If the academic definition of Chattel slavery is that they have no rights then for these scholars making this statement would be like claiming even some bachelors are married!

Meta: 

because he makes the same mistake a dozen times and demands that he's right you believe him. but there's no proof. you have no copy of what I put up to compare.

the mistake he's making is to compare two different sources who clash in their use of terms and then he is assuming they would never do that so therefore I just must have altered something

one says no chattel slavery in ANE the other speaks of Chattel slavery. They are two different guys using different standards so who knows. but there's no proof that did anything and I did not.

It's a conflict bewteen Garnsey and some one quoted by Miller.







[1]Peter Garnsey, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine. Cambridge: Press Syndicate University of Cambrige. 1-2.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nCbmfvg_quwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true
accessed 11/14/13.