Does the Bible condone slavery?

[MCWAY]

...well there is an apology warranted right here McWay. (Not from me).

When I wrote the above post I was aware that the bolded part comes from Exodus 21:8... I was drawing a parallel NOT directly quoting from Deuteronomy 21. You'll notice I didn't reference the "please not her master" quotation as being part of the same verse. 

What I was trying to show was that if a female Hebrew slave taken as a wife could be dismissed because she "pleases not her master" (Exodus 21:8 ); then why would you insist that a foreign war slave forcibly taken as a FOREIGN slave wife then dismissed because the soldier/husband similarly "have no delight in her" was anything other than a slave with no rights to her own sexual consent?

Another pitiful attempt to cover your exposed behind. 

You weren't aware that what you quoted came from Exodus 21. Otherwise,

1) You wouldn't have used the phrase, "Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master". "

2) You would have known that Exodus 21 was NOT talking about a foreign women but about Hebrew women, specifically daughters.

If a Hebrew woman SOLD to a Hebrew man has a "master" instead of a HUSBAND (Exodus 21:8 ), then how can a a foreign war captive slave not have a MASTER too?

Why would her husbands lack of "delight in her" (Deut 21:14) also constitute grounds for the same type of dismissal unless she also had a "master", RATHER than a husband.

Because the text in Deut. 21 clearly states that, upon marriage, the foreign woman, becomes a WIFE and the man becomes a HUSBAND. The word "master" does not appear in that text, whatsoever.

Deut. 21:13

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

Perhaps I should have spelled out the parallels more explicitly.

You weren't trying to make parallels. You got your signals crossed, pure and simple.

Regarding my comments on a "softening" of the translation...

The translation of "anah" in both SEXUAL contexts should be "raped"... it's the same situation, the same phrasing and the same context.

The two phrases:
Deuteronomy 21:14 "...because thou hast humbled her."
...and...
Exodus 21:8 "...seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."

....are identical in the original Hebrew aren't they?

NOPE!!!

The phrase for "humbled" is anah

The phrase for "hath dealt deceitfully with her" is bagad, which means "to deal faithlessly" or "to offend".

Both should carry the same translation that the phrase "anah" (in a sexual context) carries in Deuteronomy 22:28-29    
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her."

Says who?

So if it's "raped" in Deuteronomy 22:29 (as you McWay insist), then it should be "raped" in both  Deuteronomy 21:14 and Exodus 21:8... similar sexual contexts, similar situations, same word.

Wrong, boy genius!!! What I said was that the word, "anah" simply means "humbled". It's the context of the surrounding words that describes HOW the woman get humbled.

But the ACTUAL translations are (King James Version quoted throughout this post):
Deuteronomy 22:29 "...humbled her." ...This one you, McWay, insist refers to a RAPE.
Deuteronomy 21:14 "...humbled her."
Exodus 21:8 ..."dealt deceitfully with her."

Once again, it's time for you to hit the "Hooked on Phonics" sessions.

I insist that Deut. 22 refers to rape, BECAUSE THE SURROUNDING WORDS SAYS THAT SHE WAS RAPED (the man  "lay hold on her, and lie with her")

That phrase DOES NOT APPEAR in Deut. 21 (nor does anything like such appear there). The "humbled" part is due to the woman being divorced.

Nor does that phrase appears in Ex. 21 (in fact, "anah" doesn't appear in that passage AT ALL).

Perhaps I am being too severe in insisting the translation should be "raped"... but using "humbled" and "dealt deceitfully" instead of DEFILED; SHAMED; ABUSED etc IS INDEED A SOFTENING OF THE TRANSLATION.

No, it is not. That is the translation of the words actually used in the Hebrew. If there's any issue of rape in the equation, it is clearly spelled out in the text, as is the case with Deut. 22.

You can't argue that "rape" is only warranted in Deut 22:29 because of the "lay hands upon her" inference of forced sex, NOT when Deut 21:14 involves a captured foreign war slave... taken by force as a slave and forcibly married.

Which was the whole thrust of my argument.



The Luke

Yes, I can make the argument, because rape is ALL about force. There's no 30-day waiting period for someone who intends on raping a woman.

[The Luke]

McWay,


I dismiss your criticisms as it is becoming more and more obvious that you cannot differentiate between what the text actually contains and the inference you imply, and I'll wait till Dedee reads my post and see what he thinks.

I quoted one passage (with a reference) then added in a quote from a nearly identical passage to draw a parallel between the two... because the parallel illustrates my point.

Let me give you an analogy by means of a joke:
I put it to you that the phrase "The king is dead. Long live the king!" uttered upon the demise of a monarch and recognition of the heir apparent is, in fact, a reference to the inevitable return and resurrection of our true lord... Elvis Presley. These members of the Royal Guard are in fact acknowledging their true allegiance to the King of Rock and Roll... when he returns they will cast off their fealty to the monarch with a polite "Thank you, thank you very much..."


The red is a direct quote referenced to the name in orange, the green is an obvious parallel (used here for comic effect), it is not necessarily also attributable to the same source. It was quoted to draw a comic parallel between Elvis Presley and the Royal Guard... I'm not misquoting the members of the Royal Guard. To claim such merely illustrates your lack of intellect.

Should I entertain the stupidity of some fool who insists no Royal Guard would ever utter such an insubordinate dismissal to his royal superior? because he foolishly doesn't understand the context? should I post sources?

Dedee will get it.



The Luke

[MCWAY]

McWay,


I dismiss your criticisms as it is becoming more and more obvious that you cannot differentiate between what the text actually contains and the inference you imply, and I'll wait till Dedee reads my post and see what he thinks.

I'm sorry, isn't Deedee a woman? 

I know what the text contains, which is what makes it so easy to tear your silly claims apart.

I quoted one passage (with a reference) then added in a quote from a nearly identical passage to draw a parallel between the two... because the parallel illustrates my point.

First, you didn't make any parallels from the start. You simply screwed up your verses. Deut. 21 and Deut. 22 talk about a woman being "humbled", using the exact same word, "anah".

Since "anah" DOES NOT MEAN "rape", the surrounding text determined how this humbling occurs to the women. In one, it's divorce; in the other, it's rape.

Let me give you an analogy by means of a joke:
I put it to you that the phrase "The king is dead. Long live the king!" uttered upon the demise of a monarch and recognition of the heir apparent is, in fact, a reference to the inevitable return and resurrection of our true lord... Elvis Presley. These members of the Royal Guard are in fact acknowledging their true allegiance to the King of Rock and Roll... when he returns they will cast off their fealty to the monarch with a polite "Thank you, thank you very much..."


The red is a direct quote referenced to the name in orange, the green is an obvious parallel (used here for comic effect), it is not necessarily also attributable to the same source. It was quoted to draw a comic parallel between Elvis Presley and the Royal Guard... I'm not misquoting the members of the Royal Guard. To claim such merely illustrates your lack of intellect.

Should I entertain the stupidity of some fool who insists no Royal Guard would ever utter such an insubordinate dismissal to his royal superior? because he foolishly doesn't understand the context? should I post sources?

Dedee will get it.


The Luke

Again, the pitiful excuses go onward.

[The Luke]

McWay,

We'll see what Dedee has to say... I think you have poor reading comprehension and a poor grasp of metaphor (which might explain your religiosity).

I explained my post, (I even explained the post YOU and YOU alone think demonstrates me misquoting a Bible verse: which I didn't) my explanation makes sense... according to the King James Version "anah" is translated as "humbled" in each of the three instances.

YOU insist that in Deut: 22 the translation should be "raped", but then are affronted by my claim that it should be "raped" in all three instances (Deut: 21; Deut: 22 and Ex: 18).


You are a fool... I had thought your dismissals, evasions, equivocation and deliberate misquoting were an array of tactics utilised by a sane person attempting to rationalise his religious delusions... but now I see the truth.

You aren't being dismissive... it's a defense tactic: a hysterical blindness that deletes unanswerable questions from your consciousness.

You aren't evading my counter arguments... you don't understand them and dismiss by default.

You neither equivocate nor prevaricate...  you simply don't know you don't know.

You don't misquote... you misinterpret.


I won't be short with you any further McWay... you are to be pitied. I'll say a prayer for you, and atheists prayers are worth double points.

Merry Mithras.


The Luke

[big L dawg]

the book is filled with plagiarism's and lies can we at least agree on that?

[Shaunie]

MCWAY - still no sensible reply?

[Deedee]

The kidnapping thing isn’t a factor, because (as mentioned earlier), the penalty for kidnapping someone from their homeland was DEATH. Therefore, the only time this happens is was during the aftermath of combat, in which the opponent was the aggressor.


Not quite, Deedee. As pointed out, once he married her, she becomes his WIFE. If he divorces here, because "he has found no delight in her", that makes her the "unloved" (NASB) or "hated" (KJV) wife. And, that means that she gets entitled to care. Plus, if her son is the ex-husband's firstborn, he gets the bulk of his father's estate, upon Dad's demise.



On the contrary, He does indeed. The whole reason that Abe and Sarah did this mess in the first place is because they grew impatient, wondering if God was really going to deliver on His promise to give them a child.

We have NO indication of any mistreatment of Hagar, prior to her getting pregnant, and NO report that she was forced into doing this. The drama between the women starts, once Hagar gets pregnant.

And, the ONLY REASON that Abe agrees that Hagar and Ishmael should leave is because of God's promise that He will care for both Hagar and Ishmael, making Ishmael's descendants numerous, as well.

Once again, you are making the gross assumption, with little to back it, that Hagar was an unwilling participant in this whole surrogate thing. The problem with that is that, per the text, we have NO indication that Abe did anything with Hagar, PRIOR to Sarah's idea that she have this promised child.

I beg to differ. For starters, in chattel slavery, the servant would likely not have that option, whatsoever. Plus, there'd be no law stating that, if a guy came under servitude with his wife, that he'd be allowed to leave with his wife. If the master were allowed to be that cold, he could keep the guy's wife, even if the servant brought his wife with him. But, that's not how it goes.

Plus, there are the other laws mentioned earlier: No kidnapping from foreign lands, status as full wife for foreign women, who get married; servitude being VOIDED, upon major injury of the servants; masters PUT TO DEATH for killing servants, etc.

And, there's the issue of the Jubilee. The servant, after seven years, doesn't leave his former master's house "impoverished".

Deut. 15:12-14

 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:  Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.  

And, why did they do this?

Verse 15-18

And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.  

And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;  

Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.  

It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.  

So, it appears that, if the male servant is leaving, he's leaving with a healthy amount of livestock, grain, or whatever capital his master has. I'm quite sure the master wouldn't mind negotating, to get some of those sheep, oxen, grain, wine, etc. back, in exchange for the former servant's wife and kids.


Did you not read what I posted? "I'd say they don't want the bills or the marriage. They'd want the perp to suffer and the payment of the bills, NOT to come out of their own pocket.


Rape isn't the "regular way". And, in certain circumstances, such as the penalty for besmirching a young woman's character and virginity, there was a lifetime penalty: DOUBLE THE BRIDE-PRICE and marriage (care for the bride) FOR LIFE.

MCWAY, first off merry christmas! I'll answer this, but I do find these posts are getting longer and longer and it's tough to answer everything unless you have a lot of stamina. 

You've brought up the death penalty in almost every post, which leads me to believe that you think just because a law is in place, there will be no crime committed. I'm looking at it from the perspective that people are people, and once someone has power over another, the law will be circumvented.

You say the New and Old T's don't condone slavery as we think of it, but you're limiting peoples' perceptions to slavery in the south. There is plenty of evidence that slavery exists today.  One can go to Haiti and purchase a young girl for $500. Laos, much the same. I've given you other examples, and for all intents and purposes, you're saying that you condone this. The UN, most civilized westernized countries deplore it. Yet, it's the same basic slavery as set out in the OT, and approved of, by Jesus.

If nothing else, you're certainly condoning polygamy, as do the old and new T's, so I suppose that story of the young 8-year-old girl denied divorce in Saudi Arabia fills your heart with a warm feeling? It's got both the polygamy and slavery (selling a child into indentured servitude) aspect going for it.

The Luke: I am female. 

[The Luke]

The Luke: I am female. 

...apologies, pre-presuming that apologies should be warranted for presupposing gender. Anyway, apologies again.

I don't think we've bumped into each other on the boards much, but I must admit I'm very impressed with your posts Dedee. In fact I'm going to adopt some of your excellent tactics for future logic-versus-brick-wall discussions.

I really enjoyed watching you take McWay to task in this thread by avoiding his evasive side steps and continuously hammering away at the central theme. Some excellent arguments, and your writing style is nicely structured and flows very well... articulate too.


I would be interested to know if you have also noticed how selective McWay (and Loco somewhat) are regarding what they will and will not answer?


I've noticed that every point proffered is countered with the same obstructionist checklist:

-total dismissal... "Kevin Bacon was not in Footloose. Prove it!"

-site the source/reference... "I don't accept IMDB as a source, and I refuse to watch Footloose".

-prove your point siting only the source I accept... "Where in the Harry Potter books is Kevin Bacon even mentioned?" 

-prove a negative... then Hectored if you either attempt to; explain you can't; or ignore the demand
"That doesn't prove... Why can't you prove... When are you going to prove Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose, only quoting the works of JK Rowling?"

-falsification by deliberate misquote...
"You still haven't posted that reference from ANY "Harry the Potmaker" book PROVING that Sir Francis Bacon directed the movie Loosefoot, like you promised you would!"

-copy and paste... "Here's an interview with the director of Footloose; Herbert Ross, in which he NEVER once mentions anyone named "Kevin Bacon": http://www.JebusFreaksWhoDenyKevinBaconStarredInFootloose.org ...there is also a lengthy commentary by Reverend CouldDisproveGravity wherein he clearly proves that the multiple references to someone identified only as "Kevin" is, in fact, famous actor Kevin Costner, a personal friend of the director."


Am I the only person who recognizes this pattern?

Is McWay a former Scientologist or something?

It seems as if he's been trained in obstructionist debating techniques.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

McWay,

We'll see what Dedee has to say... I think you have poor reading comprehension and a poor grasp of metaphor (which might explain your religiosity).

I explained my post, (I even explained the post YOU and YOU alone think demonstrates me misquoting a Bible verse: which I didn't) my explanation makes sense... according to the King James Version "anah" is translated as "humbled" in each of the three instances.

YOU insist that in Deut: 22 the translation should be "raped", but then are affronted by my claim that it should be "raped" in all three instances (Deut: 21; Deut: 22 and Ex: 18).

No, I DID NOT insist that the translation should be "raped". Get you bifocals out and get your facts straight. The translation for "anah" is simply "humbled". The way the woman is being humbled, in Deut. 22, is via rape, BECAUSE OF WHAT THE SURROUNDING TEXTS SAYS. What part of that ain't sinking in to that grey matter"

You are a fool... I had thought your dismissals, evasions, equivocation and deliberate misquoting were an array of tactics utilised by a sane person attempting to rationalise his religious delusions... but now I see the truth.

You aren't being dismissive... it's a defense tactic: a hysterical blindness that deletes unanswerable questions from your consciousness.

You aren't evading my counter arguments... you don't understand them and dismiss by default.

You neither equivocate nor prevaricate...  you simply don't know you don't know.

You don't misquote... you misinterpret.


I won't be short with you any further McWay... you are to be pitied. I'll say a prayer for you, and atheists prayers are worth double points.

Merry Mithras.


The Luke

Please refrain from projecting your shortcomings onto me. I don't need them.

I don't need to misquote you (as you miserably cry, every time you shoot yourself in the foot). Nor, do I need to evade your counter-arguments. It is addressing these very counter-arguments that makes you resort to this pointless sniveling.

[MCWAY]

You need to ask why slavery is wrong?  Do you not understand empathy?

I understand it just fine. The question was asked for one reason: If you claim something is "wrong", then you need to cite the moral reason for it and on what authority such is based.

I think I made it clear that 'all' slavery is wrong...  is this you deliberately confusing the issue?

And, I made it clear, when I asked on what authority is your statement made.

Ah, this is the... 'slavery benefited the victim' approach.  Surely as god helped the Israelites to win these battles, couldn't god of helped the victims with further miracles?

And these "miracles" would be what (assuming the gross assumption that you and other Bible critics wouldn't find a reason to whine about that, too)?

Again, what's to be done with these folks?

MCWAY it's not one of the easier things you've done... just because you 'think' you've "done" it doesn't make it true...  Oh, and the crux is that the bible does condone slavery - regardless of arguments of the particular form of slavery.

It took little effort on my part, no "mental gymnastics" contrary to your claim. And, the crux is that the "slavery" listed in the OT DOES NOT resemble that of chattel slavery (what's usually associated with the term), whatsoever.

We know that chattel slavery is wrong and can list the specifics as to why it is such (i.e. kidnapping someone from his homeland, stripping them of all human dignities, being able to assault and rape them without consequence; no chance of servants becoming financially/socially prominent, no accountability for children fostered by sexual assault/rape, etc.). However, the question has been asked as to what (and what authority) makes the "slavery" described in the OT wrong and why, something neither you nor your fellow critics have addressed.

That's fantastic - only apologist could possibly say that the statement "slavery is wrong" is "hollow".  Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're correct, and morality is unchanging... could you explain to the forum, just what forms of slavery are okay today?  Obviously these would be the forms of slavery you support and fit in with your moral world view.

You might want to read what I said again: Merely stating that "slavery is wrong", without giving the reasons why, makes your statement hollow.

And, that led to my question to you regarding why, if morality is always changing, reverting to chattel slavery AGAIN would be wrong.

Again, who's making the rules, here?

[MCWAY]

MCWAY, first off merry christmas! I'll answer this, but I do find these posts are getting longer and longer and it's tough to answer everything unless you have a lot of stamina. 

You've brought up the death penalty in almost every post, which leads me to believe that you think just because a law is in place, there will be no crime committed. I'm looking at it from the perspective that people are people, and once someone has power over another, the law will be circumvented.

I don't disagree with you on that one. But the issue isn't whether or not the Israelites violated their laws (that is quite clear as the OT points out, on multiple occasions, that they "did evil in the sight of the Lord). It's basically about those laws themselves.

People weren't supposed to be abused in the manners you've described, when relating to OT laws. And there were punishments to be meted, when such violations occur.

As I've said, our laws in the USA are quite just (in my view, anyway). Yet, we have people who abuse them and circumvent them.

You say the New and Old T's don't condone slavery as we think of it, but you're limiting peoples' perceptions to slavery in the south. There is plenty of evidence that slavery exists today.  One can go to Haiti and purchase a young girl for $500. Laos, much the same. I've given you other examples, and for all intents and purposes, you're saying that you condone this. The UN, most civilized westernized countries deplore it. Yet, it's the same basic slavery as set out in the OT, and approved of, by Jesus.

The comparisons to slavery in the South is due to the fact that chattel slavery in the South is what usually comes to mind when slavery is mentioned.

As for your claim about Haiti and Laos, what specifically is being deplored? Is it her merely being in servitude or is it particular abuses (rape, physical abuse, inability to socially advance, etc.)?

There's a big difference being getting someone to be a maid or a hired hand, working crops, and procuring someone to be assaulted without consequence.

If nothing else, you're certainly condoning polygamy, as do the old and new T's, so I suppose that story of the young 8-year-old girl denied divorce in Saudi Arabia fills your heart with a warm feeling? It's got both the polygamy and slavery (selling a child into indentured servitude) aspect going for it.

The Luke: I am female. 

Why would a 8-year-old girl being put in a marriage fill my heart up with a warm feeling? My feeling would be that, if any female is involved in marriage, she should be of decent age (here's it's 18, though slightly younger female can marry under certain conditions). Secondly, polygamy is a bad idea (the grief that Abe underwent with Sarah and Hagar, along with Jacob's woes and those of King David, clearly demonstrate that).

[MCWAY]

...apologies, pre-presuming that apologies should be warranted for presupposing gender. Anyway, apologies again.

I don't think we've bumped into each other on the boards much, but I must admit I'm very impressed with your posts Dedee. In fact I'm going to adopt some of your excellent tactics for future logic-versus-brick-wall discussions.

I really enjoyed watching you take McWay to task in this thread by avoiding his evasive side steps and continuously hammering away at the central theme. Some excellent arguments, and your writing style is nicely structured and flows very well... articulate too.

Indeed, she is. That makes discussions with her far more entertaining then they are with you.

I would be interested to know if you have also noticed how selective McWay (and Loco somewhat) are regarding what they will and will not answer?

Perhaps, she'd be interested in seeing the long laundry lists of items you've evaded FOR WEEKS.


I've noticed that every point proffered is countered with the same obstructionist checklist:

-total dismissal... "Kevin Bacon was not in Footloose. Prove it!"[/quote]

Your arguments weren't dismissed. They were addressed directly.

-site the source/reference... "I don't accept IMDB as a source, and I refuse to watch Footloose".

Once again, you use this to pardon your own laziness or lack of ability to support your claims. No one has refused to look at anything. If someone makes a claim about the laws of Israel, as it relates to a particular subject, there is NO NEED to cite the ENTIRE BIBLE, when a couple of chapters and verses from a specific book will suffice.

That is what has been asked of you REPEATEDLY, when you make your silly statements. Yet, you come up with the flimsiest excuses as to why you can't do it.

-prove your point siting only the source I accept... "Where in the Harry Potter books is Kevin Bacon even mentioned?" 

Another dead-wrong statement on your part. This is but more of your blubbering, when someone looks up a particular subject matter and find the diametric opposition between your claims and the actual facts.

-prove a negative... then Hectored if you either attempt to; explain you can't; or ignore the demand
"That doesn't prove... Why can't you prove... When are you going to prove Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose, only quoting the works of JK Rowling?"

You get "Hectored", because (as stated earlier) when people do the research on a particular topic, and bring it to the forefront, they find the HUGE GAP between your assertions and the actual data on the matter at hand.

That's been shown repeatedly on your limp-wristed "challenge" about the account of Jesus Christ. Several details claims you made were shown to be patently FALSE (both about Jesus Christ and about the other figures from whom Jesus was supposedly crafted).

When Loco or I make a claim, we give the specific references (both intra- and extra-Biblical) to support them. You, on the other hand, spout utter gibberish, which can easily be sliced to ribbons with a few clicks of the mouse.

-falsification by deliberate misquote...
"You still haven't posted that reference from ANY "Harry the Potmaker" book PROVING that Sir Francis Bacon directed the movie Loosefoot, like you promised you would!"

Your usual crying towel, when cornered. No one has to misquote you, because your bone-headed statements can be easily cited (every jot and tittle) for all to see. A prime example is your foolish cry that you didn't make reference to Deut. 21, when citing a passage, regarding a woman who "pleaseth not her master". You clearly did that, and I cited the reply #, date, time, and EVERY SINGLE WORD YOU SAID.

-copy and paste... "Here's an interview with the director of Footloose; Herbert Ross, in which he NEVER once mentions anyone named "Kevin Bacon": http://www.JebusFreaksWhoDenyKevinBaconStarredInFootloose.org ...there is also a lengthy commentary by Reverend CouldDisproveGravity wherein he clearly proves that the multiple references to someone identified only as "Kevin" is, in fact, famous actor Kevin Costner, a personal friend of the director."

The "copy and paste" is for one simple reason: There's nothing to hide. The statements I make have the facts and scholarship behind them to back it. And, anyone can view that, at his/her convenience, make his/her own decisions about the information, and respond accordingly.

Am I the only person who recognizes this pattern?

Is McWay a former Scientologist or something?

It seems as if he's been trained in obstructionist debating techniques.


The Luke

No, I've been "trained" on how to dismantle arguments from Biblical skeptics like you, how to carve through the rhetoric and condescending remarks, get to the meat of your argument (what little there is), and thoroughly pick it apart, using facts, citing references, and giving insight from scholars on the subject matter.

[The Luke]

It's fucken Mithras Day for fucks sake, take a break McWay.



The Luke