Imagine

[truthreality]

Goddamn, man. A shotgun would have done, but you brought a fucking nuke!

But i fear he has succeeded in dragging you off course. However, given the thorough beating you just gave the point, i dont see any further argument as needed on this point anyway. and its likely he will twist your response to some kind of justification of god's will or something equally vapid.

He does have a knack for the usual christian tactic of diverting the conversation so that they dont have to face the hard questions.

Actually he has weakened his position by trying to drag me off course. At first we were talking about the atrocities of slavery in the Bible but since he brought up war he has now opened the discussion to the atrocities of genocide, violence and murder in the Bible. His attempts to divert the conversation has come back to bite him in the ass. He is digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Actually he has weakened his position by trying to drag me off course. At first we were talking about the atrocities of slavery in the Bible but since he brought up war he has now opened the discussion to the atrocities of genocide, violence and murder in the Bible. His attempts to divert the conversation has come back to bite him in the ass. He is digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.

i didnt think of it like that.

Given that, he IS kinda fucked in this conversation, huh?

[minorwork]

i didnt think of it like that.

Given that, he IS kinda fucked in this conversation, huh?

I thought he countered your claim that Wiki was the more accurate, though a dead heat statistically.

[truthreality]

I thought he countered your claim that Wiki was the more accurate, though a dead heat statistically.

Do you think Wikipedia is an accurate and reliable source?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I thought he countered your claim that Wiki was the more accurate, though a dead heat statistically.

I never claimed it was the most accurate source, just that it was as accurate as Britannica, which is held as one of the gold standards, and it is essentially just as accurate. the difference in those errors is so small that it doesnt matter. And both scored over 95% accuracy. It also highlights the folly of trusting one source on anything.

And he hasnt countered that claim, because he completely dismisses wikipedia as a valid source. I havent heard a damn thing in response to the articles on the studies that I posted, probably because he refuses to actually admit when he is wrong about something. We have an entire thread of him doing exactly that right here.

[minorwork]

Do you think Wikipedia is an accurate and reliable source?

Better than me or you.

[minorwork]

I never claimed it was the most accurate source, just that it was as accurate as Britannica, which is held as one of the gold standards, and it is essentially just as accurate. the difference in those errors is so small that it doesnt matter. And both scored over 95% accuracy. It also highlights the folly of trusting one source on anything.

And he hasnt countered that claim, because he completely dismisses wikipedia as a valid source. I havent heard a damn thing in response to the articles on the studies that I posted, probably because he refuses to actually admit when he is wrong about something. We have an entire thread of him doing exactly that right here.

If I've a personal knowledge of something wrong on Wiki, I submit it, my reasons, my sources. Does Wiki toe the line of consensus to the dismissal of the outrageous? That is a matter of opinion on the fringes. I have no problem at all with Wiki. Your assessement of its overall stature I agree with. Questatement grasps at straws a lot. Mighty short ones too.

Nevertheless, you made this statement that Wiki was better and your sources showed different.

"Today, its actually more accurate than print encyclopedias."

Dead heat statistically but in particulars? Good thing you didn't bet. I'd of give him the wager unless you was really good at tap dancing. At the mine a guy ready to bet a blow job on something like that,... well it gives pause to reconsider the statements confidence level. A real bluff caller that wager was.

[Questatement]

Here is some non-Wikipedia sources for the disgusting nature of slavery:

"Yet we must never forget that these same 'welfare capitalist' plantations in the Deep South were essentially ruled by terror.

I never represented industrialized slave labor in the U.S. as beneficial so on this, we agree. I know of only one narrative in the OT which comes close to resembling this. The Gideonites enslaved and used as wood cutter and water carriers. All other references are household slaves.

Can you show reliable historical references to household slaves being likewise mistreated? Also, what laws were in place, if any, to protect against said mistreatment?

You know, like apples to apples.

[Questatement]

Israel's enemies are whoever the authors of the Bible choose to them. Generally they are those who do not suite the interest of Israel.

Very close.

Israel's enemies are those who did not suit the interests of God as it related to the nation Israel.

God gave the descendents of Abraham a stretch of land and assisted those descendents, under the command of Joshua, to kill all of the current inhabitants and in the process, inhabit the same land in their place. The enemies of Israel were those who possessed the land belonging to them when they arrived and/or those who encroached upon the same land once possessed.

Both the land and the people on it belonged to God to do with as it pleased him since he created both. Hence, God retains standard creator rights to modify or destroy what belongs to him.

[truthreality]

Very close.

Israel's enemies are those who did not suit the interests of God as it related to the nation Israel.

God gave the descendents of Abraham a stretch of land and assisted those descendents, under the command of Joshua, to kill all of the current inhabitants and in the process, inhabit the same land in their place. The enemies of Israel were those who possessed the land belonging to them when they arrived and/or those who encroached upon the same land once possessed.

Both the land and the people on it belonged to God to do with as it pleased him since he created both. Hence, God retains standard creator rights to modify or destroy what belongs to him.

You have just repeated what I said in an incredibly toned down version. Case is closed. I would reccommend you conede your defeat. Right now you sound like a Neo-Nazi trying to deny the holocaust eveer happening. We have established the God of the Old Testament is a genocidal, rapist, child killing, murdering dicator. Shall we move on to the New Testament?

[Peter]

Both the land and the people on it belonged to God to do with as it pleased him since he created both. Hence, God retains standard creator rights to modify or destroy what belongs to him.

I wondered when that argument would surface.

"We are all gods property and he can do whatever he wants with his property." That's a pitiful argument that really just highlights how much better mankind is than yaweh when it comes to morality. Is it any wonder that yaweh expects us to own other people?

But wait! What do you mean "belonged" to yaweh? Doesn't everything still belong to yaweh? Did the rules change when I wasn't looking?

[Questatement]

I wondered when that argument would surface.

"We are all gods property and he can do whatever he wants with his property." That's a pitiful argument that really just highlights how much better mankind is than yaweh when it comes to morality.

Can you tell me what the world would look like today if there had been no nation of Israel phenomenon?