UESP Forums

One thing that always causes a curio pique in Ed's head, is how can you say "God says" this or that.

'Cause... Y'know, no ones met him, no one has any means to physically represent him, such is part of the essence of omniscience.

As it's been said before, God did not write the bible. In fact, if we have no means of contacting the big man, than the bible is just purely a compendium of the opinions of the authors.

Unless you give Ed his phone number, nothing is really god's word at all.


Hooray, the logical legal manner of looking at it.

Gotta remember, different faiths have different ceremonies in their 'marriage'. But all end with the same legal document.

I was just about to post something like this. Great point!

Becuse we belive God walked on the earth and spoke to pepole who then wrote the bible.

Mosses spoke to God and so did a few others through out time, and they either passed on their storys or wrote it down.


as of now no, but no one has proof of a lot of things and we still act like they exist like a billion of theroys we have.

They are treated as "real" even when many are later found to be wrong, but in till then are treated as if they are right.


Wrong, God and his son christ are the ones who spoke, and those he blessed wrote the bible, the ones who where taught by God, mosses pass his teachings, Paul passes his





Once again I cant give you Ceasers number, dose that mean its not Ceaser word?
logic = fails
Many things have been said and we cant prove they said it becuse of the fact we where not there, that dose not mean that it did not happen

as for if its God word, we BELIVE belive means we think it is, the very idea of belife is to not have proof
so dont start on that again.

We dont have proof just like you cant prove that their arte aleins but your free to follow and act like there is

just like you cant prove it was wrote by some guy and serves nothing but your free to follow and act like there is



Yes we dont deny this, none of us have,

You know... anyone can claim to have otherworldly spirits talking through them. We call them con-artists.

The way you put it makes it seem to Ed like a 2000 year old, and very elaborate con.

You free to belive that, but again you have no proof of that soooo like you I can look at it anyway I want



We belive it was not a con-artists and that they did, could we be wrong? sure, but not more of a chance then you being wrong either.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

One need only search less than half a century ago to find the same echoes of bigotry that we hear today. It's the same template, just different victims. Go back half a century before then, during the Women's Suffrage Movement, and you see the same template once more, only with women as the victims.

People facilitate their hatred and ignorance through the Bible, because the Bible is extremely easy to cherry-pick and purposely misinterpret.

"You're the one cherry-picking!" Except, I'm not. If you're going to be a "literalist" with some portions of the Bible, but not others, you're the worst sort of hypocrite--particularly when the portions you "literally" follow have to do with your bigotry towards another group of people.



Leviticus as goes into detail about not eating certain animals that are, now, highly prominent in our diet--namely shellfish and swine.


I don't see any of these [&@%!] that are going out of their way, even by so much as voting, to make lives miserable for the LGBT community abiding by any of these excerpts. These are still in the Bible, so what makes them, in any way, obsolete? If they're going to be "literalists" and use the Bible to discriminate against gays, why aren't they being "literalists" and trying to make life miserable for Oscar Meyer? It's a ridiculously transparent argument from people who are nothing more than bigots, and the people dumb/ignorant enough to follow them, using the Bible as a pretense.

Once again you did not read the bible
Christ says we no longer have to avoid any foods
punisment with blood (killing them) was paid for by christ
etc

You my freind are cherry picking
you open the bible read a verse and dont see anything else
Again for the last freaking time the old convanet, the one with all those "rules" you posted gives way to the NEW better one that came when christ died

punishment for sin WAS death, becuse thats what sin was, but now we are forging and so we dont do that

Slavrey once again, slaves where NOT treated "badily" as you like to think, go read it up, they had rules and things when it came to slaves, it was NOT like it was when we banded it.

I can post a verse for each of those but the slave which you need only go read up on history for.

You my freind did not read the bible no?
or did you read all of it?

you refuse to look at the verses we posted and only look at what serves you and you refuse to read the bible and ask questions and jump stright to "they dont have a reasson for this"

No..just..no. This one statement discredits you for the rest of your time as "Wolfie"...

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/slaves.htm


Here is another thing back then did the word for slave mean the same thing as the one we use now?

they did not have Gays or homosexuals so did they have slave in the way we think?

maybe it was just "Servents" or another defnition?

Your asuming slaves have stayed the same through out ALL the times and langaues and that they can translate right evrey time




this is just one case, I dont even know which others to look up, but "slave" dont = slave like we think all the time

what did the bible mean? we dont know (someone dose, but I dont have that info front hand)

Yes, because blood sport is another word for servent. Or building giant cities and mazzaics. That's clearly not slavery in the way we think.

What are you talking about? they where serveants and they did build things but thats cause back then pepole got their jobs form their familys, or for the most part could not pick their jobs, almost all jobs where "forced" like that

so a slave would do that and a "non slave" as well would do that

And once again there is still the fact that "slave" may not be the word used in the orignal writings, it may of been something like servent or close to it and there is just no word for it and so "slave" is the closest. that they had or one of the others had and over time chnaged to this.

We cant know becuse we dont know how to read thgem but someone who dose could tell us.

Egyptians were conscripted by their rulers to work on public works, all commoner men I believe. They were paid in beer.
However, here's a point, what the [&@%!] do we call a "forced laborer?" That's a slave right? A person who works for someone and doesn't have the right to choose? Doesn't matter if the master is kind or not--the fact of the matter is that he is still a slave. Hell, and if you that they weren't slaves because of that meager payment, some slaves in pre-Civil War were also given small payments (some even bought their slavery, a slow and unsteady process to freedom). However, the term slave has always been consistent, and even though you might bring a point about Egyptian slaves, that is not relevant at all. What period was this in Egypt? Egyptian kingdoms spanned a certainly unholy amount of millenia, Cleopatra herself lived closer to the moon landing than the construction of the pyramids. Because of this, things change, a lot. Slavery in Egypt also was not a religious matter, but a militaristic or governmental matter (Though it could be argued that a pharaoh, a person with a divine mandate to rule, would be a religious figure)

The topic right now is undoubtedly the Bible, or in the very least Abrahamic religions. No one subscribes to the Egyptian gods anymore, so why muddle this with Egyptians? Wolfie, Howl posted some verses from the Bible earlier, Old Testament stuff. You say he's cherry picking, I say you have a remarkable point of evading an answer. Give us some evidence and then maybe your arguments can be considered seriously.

no they where not but funny.



but they where still forced to work many “free” of them HAD to follow what someone said.


that’s not the official definition nor dose it have to be the one they used back then when the thing was wrote


remember not to long ago Gay meant happy, and that’s just in the same language!


Proof of this? proof its always been the same?
As said in my link a presit can be a "slave" of a God in some cases.




Because the Egyptians where AROUND the time Slaves where brought up in the OT? they had just gotten out of Egypt.

the book was wrote with that idea of slavrey (if it was even called slavrey) at the time

remeber back then there was no "Gay" "lesabain" and so it was wrote defreintly which is where confusing comes form

just like how some of the animals "listed" like the bat being a bird is WRONG, we did not have that classficaion back then, and the world meant "winged animals" or close to it, and so bird was the closest many of them could get.


I posted evidence four times today about it but here we go AGAING



you can check the rest in my msg to Ms. T I'm NOT going to post this a 5th time becuse pepole refuse to read posts or refuse to read the whole book then tell me to go find it yet try to tell me I cheery pick when they have not read it!




Christ died so that we would not have to die for sin but be forgiving

any other verses you want me to tell you why we dont do it say them one or so at a time, I cant look up 50 verses post them all and do it where you can understand them

How would you like it if I tryed to come in on a debate about a theroy with out reading the whole theroy?
How many times have you guys shot someone down for not reading the thing in question?
so why is it okay to do it with the bible

As for eating the food