God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I've been unequivocal.
If you're unable to distill the answer you are looking for, perhaps you're looking for an answer that is not available in the context.

You have not been unequivocal and claiming otherwise is simply dishonest. Just say yes or say no. Why is it so difficult?

Originally posted by @secondson
[b]"The depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong."

The depiction of ThinkOfOne that the Jews depicted God as condoning chattel slavery is wrong, just as ThinkOfOne's depiction of God as condoning slavery based on Leviticus 25 is wrong.

If ThinkOfOne thinks God ever condoned slavery, then ThinkOfOne doesn't know God.[/b]

Do you personally believe that slavery is morally justifiable?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You made the following assertion:
<<The depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by you is wrong.>>

Either back it up or leave it as the vacuous assertion that it is.

There is nothing artificial or shallow about my response.
You infer God's approval of the system on the basis of a protocol for the same.
In palliative care, can the guidelines employed be construed as endorsement of the final result?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
There is nothing artificial or shallow about my response.
You infer God's approval of the system on the basis of a protocol for the same.
In palliative care, can the guidelines employed be construed as endorsement of the final result?

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..

In the above depiction:
God expressly gives permission for Jews to buy slaves. God expressly states that they are their property. God expressly states that they can be bequeathed to their children. God expressly states that they can be made slaves for life.

How exactly is that not God being depicted as condoning chattel slavery? The above depiction IS the "final result": chattel slavery.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them sla ...[text shortened]... de slaves for life.

How exactly is that not God being depicted as condoning chattel slavery?

You continue asking questions without answering the ones put to you.
Conversations do not work according to that imbalance.
Figure that portion out if you want me to continue.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You continue asking questions without answering the ones put to you.
Conversations do not work according to that imbalance.
Figure that portion out if you want me to continue.

See my edit that addresses your question.

Questions? It's been the same question that you've been dodging all along.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
See my edit that addresses your question.

Questions? It's been the same question that you've been dodging all along.

Let me put it in as concise words and phrases possible (for me), since I have answered yours.

Answer the questions put to you, or pound sand.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Let me put it in as concise words and phrases possible (for me), since I have answered yours.

[b]Answer the questions put to you, or pound sand.[/b]

Actually you haven't answered my question. All you've done is dance around it.

You made the following assertion:
<<The depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by you is wrong.>>

Either back it up or leave it as the vacuous assertion that it is.

If you can back it up, then plainly make your best case.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
How exactly is the following not a depiction of God condoning chattel slavery?

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 4 ...[text shortened]... ting God as condoning chattel slavery. How does this reasonably apply to what I've been writing?

Leviticus 25:44&45 is not saying God condones slavery.

It's God's response to the condition of man in the cultural context of the day.

By saying God condones slavery you are misrepresenting the heart of God. It's blasphemous.

Originally posted by @secondson
Leviticus 25:44&45 is not saying God condones slavery.

It's God's response to the condition of man in the cultural context of the day.

By saying God condones slavery you are misrepresenting the heart of God. It's blasphemous.

In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as:
Expressly giving permission for Jews to buy slaves. Expressly stating that they are their property. Expressly stating that they can be bequeathed to their children. Expressly stating that they can be made slaves for life.

How exactly is that not God being depicted as condoning chattel slavery?

If God were depicted as expressly stating, "You may commit murder"", would you similarly dismiss it as "God's response to the condition of man in the cultural context of the day"?

By saying God condones slavery you are misrepresenting the heart of God. It's blasphemous.

Once again:
<<My point all along has been that the Jews were wrong for depicting God as condoning chattel slavery.>>

Clearly my point is not that "God condones slavery". Rather it is that "the Jews were wrong for depicting God as condoning chattel slavery".

Do you really not understand the distinction?

If anyone were blasphemous, it would be the Jews for having depicted God as condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Actually you haven't answered my question. All you've done is dance around it.

You made the following assertion:
<<The depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by you is wrong.>>

Either back it up or leave it as the vacuous assertion that it is.

If you can back it up, then plainly make your best case.

Your continued characterizations are wrong--- apparently intentionally so.
In the exchanges over the course of less than one day, you have put forth exactly seven questions, albeit one with the same theme.
Four of those questions you answered yourself by signifying "Check," which doesn't necessarily answer the questions either accurately or within any context (a common theme with your efforts).
Two of those questions have been asked and answered by me, with the final one a non sequitur, thereby eliminating the need for a response.

In that same time field, five questions from me to you have remained unanswered.

Taking a look at the scoreboard, that puts you in a deficit while I am in a comfortable lead by maintaining a perfect score: two legitimate questions not otherwise satisfied by the responses thus far answered (me) to five questions neither answered or addressed, in context or otherwise.

Figure it out, or we're done and you can play footsies with someone else.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]Sorry old chap. I know you never produce mean ideas yourself,....well unless describing victims of terrorist attacks as mannequins. But apart from that.
Why such a hard time letting go of something you have failed to account for?
According to your assertions, no conspiracies of any kind happen, ever.
Well, except for when they did happen, but ot ...[text shortened]... rs consider you polite, just be polite.
Anything less is equally painful.
And obvious.[/b]

Why such a hard time letting go of something you have failed to account for?

What are you blathering about? Decent people don't, in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist atrocity denigrate the dead victims by claiming they are mannequins. Sick people do that. Not decent people. Shove your right to harbor conspiracy theories, or at the very least contain yourself until a later date. Perhaps ask yourself first, "What if I am wrong and these really are people's loved ones who have been killed?"

Instead, it was pointed out how you blah blah...In other words, don’t act polite blah blah

Make up your mind. Just a page ago you were saying, "sort yourself out and stop worrying about me: you are not in a position to figure out anyone but you." - How about taking your own advice?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Your continued characterizations are wrong--- apparently intentionally so.
In the exchanges over the course of less than one day, you have put forth [b]exactly seven questions, albeit one with the same theme.
Four of those questions you answered yourself by signifying "Check," which doesn't necessarily answer the questions either accurately or withi ...[text shortened]... ntext or otherwise.

Figure it out, or we're done and you can play footsies with someone else.[/b]

Yet another dodge. You're absolutely certifiable.

Once again, here's the crux of my argument:

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..

In the above depiction:
God expressly gives permission for Jews to buy slaves. God expressly states that they are their property. God expressly states that they can be bequeathed to their children. God expressly states that they can be made slaves for life.

How exactly is that not God being depicted as condoning chattel slavery? The above depiction IS the "final result": chattel slavery.

And once again.

You made the following assertion:
<<The depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by you is wrong.>>

Either back it up or leave it as the vacuous assertion that it is.

If you can back it up, then plainly make your best case.

It's really simple freaky. Plainly state your best case.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
[b]Why such a hard time letting go of something you have failed to account for?
What are you blathering about? Decent people don't, in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist atrocity denigrate the dead victims by claiming they are mannequins. Sick people do that. Not decent people. Shove your right to harbor conspiracy theories, or at the very ...[text shortened]... me: you are not in a position to figure out anyone but you." - How about taking your own advice?[/b]

Decent people don't...
Decent people don't, eh?
Since you're positioning yourself as the arbiter of what decent people do, I'll give you first whack at what a decent person does in the scenario(s) to which you allude.
Do decent people wait until after all of the fanfare has gone away before pointing out the immediate fraudulent nature of the claims otherwise?
Do they (not in any particular order)
let everyone have a real good cry
wrack their brains and come up with the legislation which would best suit the tragedy?

Then, when the entire thing has been outlined, flourished with important after-the-fact details, annotated and enshrined in Wikipedia, complete with wholly redacted (or otherwise missing) autopsies or other public information, does the decent person then tell them to hold on a tic, there are some glaring inconsistencies with the whole tragic affair?
When does a sick person become a decent person in that order of events?
Vice versa?
All of the conspiracies (official ones, mind you, not the made up ones that I have pointed out) which have been established as actual: were they exposed by sick people or were those decent people?

Perhaps ask yourself first, "What if I am wrong and these really are people's loved ones who have been killed?"
I'll do you one better, since I already ask myself that very same question, which is why I never claim to know the entirety of the event, only that some or all of it is mugging for the camera, otherwise dissociated from any real tragedy.

Here's a question which bears consideration:
"What if I am wrong and there really are people who are telling a fabricated story for some unnamed reason?"

Make up your mind. Just a page ago you were saying, "sort yourself out and stop worrying about me: you are not in a position to figure out anyone but you." - How about taking your own advice?
It's great advice.
Thanks.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Yet another dodge. You're absolutely certifiable.

Once again, here's the crux of my argument:

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will ...[text shortened]... lainly make your best case.

It's really simple freaky. Plainly state your best case.

Yeah, and you either can't read or can't be bothered to listen to anyone but your ideology.
Either way, we're done.
Best of luck.