After a pause--I think I was stalling for time by making conversation--I asked him if what they were telling me was true.

He nodded but then said the obvious: that I had to walk past him to enter. About this time I felt a great fear, I think engendered by, of all things, his sorrow. I headed pass the doorway for my class immediately.

This seems to be rather too complex for a hallucination. It also took a couple of minutes, at the least, to get through. Unless some clown had sprayed the water fountain with LSD immediately prior to my drink and I was extremely sensitive to it, I can offer no theory of why this happen. I had previously studied various forms of the supernatural, including ESP, but as I had suspected, none held water. However, from this time on, I backed off a bit from the supernatural and focused more on philosophies like Marxism (the Edgar Cayce of economics) and obvious religious crazies like Christian Science and Mormonism, yet still rejecting the concept of a personal god and still calling myself an atheist. As you can see, it would be much easier if I could get around that crazy happening. I prefer the pure logic of nihilism.

Hmm, I just realize that if I had taken that offer for power I would have had to reconcile using it with true nihilism. Ouch!

>it it's not clear how common chattel slavery was with the early Hebrews.

It wasn't--that's the point of the article. What we are thinking when we use the term "slavery" is NOT what the Bible is talking about. So, when the critics lump the two together ...

And where in that post did you indicate where it came from? I just checked and don't see it. Could be my allergies screwing up my vision, but I hope not!

It was right under the blockquote, perhaps in the future I should put it in the blockquote to make it easier to notice. You've hit on some triggers for me, that I explain in my post, I'll apologize again for being so harsh. I took people trying to force me to believe God is a monster when I was a child pretty personally, and resented not being able to say my peace. One of the reasons I'm here is because I know that this continues to this day. Believing God is a monster is a pretty depressing way to look at reality, at least to me. I had rejected the Hebrew Bible, at least, before I was a teenager, but as I've said, I'm fond of some of Jesus's and Paul's writings, even though I certainly don't think Jesus is God even if a minded version of God exists (the necessary being could just be quantum fields or whatever underlies them).

Before one begins talking about as given subject, one should carefully define the relevant terms. On "slavery" see https://bibleapologetics.wordp...

I've been overly harsh on you, I apologize. I also apologize that my posts are long, but often takes many words to convey all of the relevant information. Let me just debunk this apologetic on slavery and clarify where my anger is really directed, I've just grouped you with them, perhaps mistakenly. It's mainly this kind of misinformation that has got under my skin for quite some time, and I'm taking it out on you because you seem to be parroting much of it. Don't take my word for it, take the Bible's. Notice Leviticus 25 clearly describes chattel slavery (I'll go into this more below). The fact that it is only allowed for non-Jews just goes back into the racism theme. I'm very glad Jesus patched some of this stuff, and tried to change things so they were based on love. It's pretty clear to me that Paul did not write Ephesians or 1 and 2 Timothy, and he did not seem to be a proponent of slavery at all.
Your link seems to meander around a bit, and it it's not clear how common chattel slavery was with the early Hebrews. The idea that their morality came from God and God=Jesus seems incredibly problematic here though? Can you see why the "Bible always smells like a rose" set me off? Is genocide, chattel and sex slavery, smelling like a rose?

I certainly can't show that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but it seems immoral not to have major objections that people still connect some of this stuff to God. Add to it the murder of the firstborn. In the recent movie "Exodus" even Moses calls Yahweh a monster, and rightfully so. It gets worse when the Bible says God literally hardened Pharoahs heart (Exodus 9:12), like he wants to murder the firstborn. To make matters worse, look at the what this Christian site says the reason is:

The best, most direct, simple answer to the question above is: “In order to demonstrate His power, and in order that His name might be proclaimed throughout the entire earth.” The reason that is the best, most direct, simple answer to the question is because it is God's own answer. See Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17. God raised up Pharaoh and hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to promote His own glory.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-pharaoh.html

So God set the whole thing up so he could murder countless children because he's a vain, proud, narcissistic murderer? Are these guys serious??? The fact is they are! If God wants to show his power, why not soften Pharoah's heart, teleport the Jews right to Canaan, and the reward the Egyptians for being nice with great harvests for the next 1000 years! Surely they would believe in Yahweh then, I know I would. As you can tell, my moral objections are the strongest, and they are powerful moral objections that sometimes result in righteous anger on my part (this festered for years as I was never allowed to speak my peace on any of this when I was young).

I usually don't quote from "evilbible.com" but the information here is accurate, the Hebrew Bible clearly allows for chattel slavery of non-Jews and sexual slavery.

Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/slavery/

I'm thinking that last may have not come from Jesus, as it isn't in the the first (Mark) or second (Matthew) synoptic gospels, as far as I know. I like Paul of Tarsus and Justin Martyr, and I appreciate Abraham who argued with El not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. It's not all bad, but there is plenty bad in there, depending on the author. I think I like El, not Yahweh, but that's another story whether they were different gods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

According to Deuteronomy 32:8–9 they are not the same deity. There is more if you read the Yahweh link. You can google more, but it's my theory that Yahweh was originally on of the many sons of El.

When the Most High (Elyon, i.e., El) gave the nations their inheritance,
when he separated humanity,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings,
for Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.

>I gave you support from the National Center for Science education in my first post,

And where in that post did you indicate where it came from? I just checked and don't see it. Could be my allergies screwing up my vision, but I hope not!

>Clearly, you aren't reading my posts, or you don't understand them.

When I quote you, how can you lie and claim I didn't read it?

Did I read each and every single, it and and the? No. If I quote you it is either because I agree with you--so why lie and claim I don't understand? Or, I quote you and show you why I think that you are wrong. So again, I, a) READ what you posted and b) had to UNDERSTAND what you posted. WHY LIE?!?

>for a while

Hmmm, didn't I say "SEVERAL CENTURIES" (emphasis added this time since you obviously aren't reading my posts).

We have no idea how big the Flood was; your dimensions are devoid of any support. I have long thought that the Flood was a "local Flood" and there seems to be some internal evidence that this was so.

I gave you support from the National Center for Science education in my first post, I'm not quoting again but I'll give the hyperlink, the easy way. Clearly, you aren't reading my posts, or you don't understand them.

http://ncse.com/cej/8/2/flood-mesopotamian-archaeological-evidence

With regard to the Amalekites, I see you think it's just fine that God would kill women, children, babies, even the oxen just because someone has been attacking you for a while I doubt. That bothers me as does much else about you. Besides, why didn't God just flood them, being omnipotent and all? Or how about just strategically kill the instigators. Can God really not do something the U.S. military can do with precision strikes now? In addition you are wrong about the Bible, as usual, the Amalekites were just one of many cases.

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:34

And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:6

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16

Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

If the Bible has much historical accuracy, the Jews made genocide a habit. Perhaps they were just stories to scare off enemies...I'd like to think so.

>Umm, da flood didn't wipe out mankind. It was only 40 miles by 400 miles.

We have no idea how big the Flood was; your dimensions are devoid of any support. I have long thought that the Flood was a "local Flood" and there seems to be some internal evidence that this was so.

>you think that that one minor plot change means they didn't get the idea from the Sumerian/Babylonians from everything I've posted?

Who said that there was only one change and that it was minor?

>Each time, you just declare, "Well, the Bible never gets anything wrong, so it must not have gotten in wrong this time, or this time, or this time, or this time, or this time, or this time, or this time..."

I have never said anything of the sort. I said and I quote: "As I said before, whereever we can check the Bible always comes out smelling like a rose. So, if we can't check, I do NOT assume that this one time the critics got it right." Note the use of the words "assume" and "one". You also ignored the first sentence.

Before one begins talking about as given subject, one should carefully define the relevant terms. On "slavery" see https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-15/

>The Jews were always bad mouthing non-Jews in the early days, they were quite racist.

Therre is NO evidence for such a remark and it is actually worse when the critics condemn the Jews for something, but they say NOTHING about the Gentiles doing it to the Jews.

> They didn't even know the Sumerians of course.

Quitel likely since one could say that by the time of the Jews they had been absorbed into other cultures from their very early days (5500 BC to 1940 BC when Sumer came under the rule of the Amorites).

>I'm guessing you think God was behind genocide too.

The only incident that could be considered to be such was with Amalekites, who had been attacking the Jews for several centuries, before God gave the Jews the order to be His instrument to punish them. Again the critics of the Jews ignore what the Amalekites had been doing for centuries.

Oh, and the ancient Sumerians were no more "wicked" than the Jews. Sure they took slaves, but so did the Jews. Here is the oldest known law code:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

The Jews were always bad mouthing non-Jews in the early days, they were quite racist. They didn't even know the Sumerians of course.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_cana.htm

I'm guessing you think God was behind genocide too...Wow!

Umm, da flood didn't wipe out mankind. It was only 40 miles by 400 miles. Do you really think all the women, children, and babies who drowned horribly were "wicked"? The entire concept that God intentionally brings floods is despicable from a modern point of view. I get it way, back then, but to believe it today? Did God bring all these floods too? Were all these people "wicked"??? Many of the people killed in these floods were CHRISTIAN!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods

Besides, you think that that one minor plot change means they didn't get the idea from the Sumerian/Babylonians from everything I've posted? Are you saying that modern vampire movies didn't get their idea from the original Dracula? Wow!

As I said before, whereever we can check the Bible always comes out smelling like a rose. So, if we can't check, I do NOT assume that this one time the critics got it right.

Dude, this is just the beginning of the problems with the Bible. Each time, you just declare, "Well, the Bible never gets anything wrong, so it must not have gotten in wrong this time, or this time, or this time, or this time, or this time, or this time, or this time..." This defines irrationality.

If God exists, I'm sure he appreciates me defending him from foolish accusations like murdering babies with floods ;)