Raf

I stopped reading when he defended selling your daughter into slavery and claimed women have more rights than men. Maybe he is not more moral than Yahweh. But decent people are. I am honestly shocked. Define owned. Please.

I'd love to see my employer keep me from my wife and kids until I sign a contract vowing to be a lifetime employee. I see nothing honest about equating employment with being owned. Rather, I see a desperate effort to deny that this ghastly practice was approved by Yahweh. I know people who've practiced yoga for a decade who cannot do a better job of bending over backwards.

You are entitled to your opinion, but when you are unable to see the difference between being employed and being owned, you have seriously waved the white flag.

Not Harrison Ford

The star of this movie was originally the intended star of Beverly Hills Cop. But he made a lot of changes to that script that the studio could not afford to implement. So he left Beverly Hills Cop and took his changes to this movie project, which was based on a novel called "Fair Game." A decade later, "Fair Game" was made into a movie in its own right. It starred William Baldwin and Cindy Crawford, and by all accounts it was lousy. This film has a reputation as a flop, despite having the largest opening weekend in Warner Brothers history up until that point. The movie has no sequels, though its star is not exactly what one would call averse to the idea of revisiting the next chapter in the lives of his characters.

It was the "died during sex" that did it.

Hill Street Blues

I'm inclined to agree that a thief who has to sell himself will go free once his debt is paid or when the seven years are up. Not 100 percent sure, seeing as the verse never referes to the thief as an ebed. What is that word? Does the torah ban forced slavery? For all? The thread topic is NOT "was America's south more moral than Yahweh?" Comparing Biblical slavery to America's south is an argument from cultural relativism and is invalid for reasons we've already discussed. We're trying to learn whether Biblical slavery stands on its own, morally. Thus far, in my opinion, you have not made the case for this, though I do give you credit for trying. Nonetheless, you are omitting enough features of ebeddery to call your conclusion (that it's moral) into question. I assume you have more to post on the subject, so I'll exercise more patience and wait for it. Same comment as above. That's not "running away." That's "quitting." They are entirely different terms, with good reason. You don't run away from your job. You quit. Actually, it is not used because it isn't right. My employer does not "own" me. They own the work I produce, because they are paying for it. But they do not "own" me. I'm reserving comment on that last point for the simple reason that I haven't done enough to document it, but the notion that a runaway slave didn't have to go back is widely agreed to be referring to slaves from outside nations coming into Hebrew land, NOT ebeds in Israel running away from their masters. I'm sticking my neck out making this statement. When I have time to find and check the source of this belief, I will post it and, if necessary, retract my comment. In case it's not clear, I am not done either.

I think waysider's pithiness beautifully complements a reference that is on-target, relevant and highly effective.

"O.K., show of hands. How many people want to be robbed by this group?"

The movie is Newsies. Free post.

Batman Kim Basinger L.A. Confidential

We should all be grateful for Tzaia's unbiased, logically sound, insightful and irrefutable analysis of this thread and the history of religion as it relates to morality in society.

Danny Devito Ruthless People Judge Reinhold

Lauren Hutto Once Bitten Jim Carrey

My comments about bolstering were strictly about effective debating. I didn't say you were off topic. I didn't say you couldn't continue doing it. All I said is it was becoming habitual, and I called it out for what it is: an attempt to sway readers by declaring someone else's statement to be more truthful, accurate, well-researched, unbiased than it actually is. You can pay every compliment you want. And I can employ every critique I want, as long as we are both fair and on-topic. Except for your "divide and conquer" FALSE ACCUSATION, we are both being fair and on-topic.

Cool Hand Luke The Usual Suspects "Well, some people without brains do an awful lot of talking don't they?"

Once again, you are being untruthful when you accuse me of employing a divide and conquer strategy. You are being untruthful when you feign ignorance about the basis of my statement that you are bearing falsewitness against me. You can post whatever you want as long as it is on topic. Make another false accusation against me and it will be reported immediately. Are we clear?

If you are going to call me untruthful, you'd better back it up by citing an untruth. Otherwise it is name calling and will not be tolerated. I put up with you once and let you get away with trolling the carp out of the thread, and I assure you I will not let that happen again.

Why are you reposting the exact same thing? You have consistently referred to me as having a divide and conquer strategy. That assertion is untruthful. I've asked you to prove your assertion or stop making it because it is false. Reposting the same post that doesn't address that issue is irrelevant. I am asking you to stop. Appreciate it. Good night.

I already addressed the information you asserted. Then I addressed your bolstering. Finally, I addressed your bearing falsewitness against me. Thanks for understanding.

Shirley MacClaine (sp?) Steel Magnolias Julia Roberts

http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/cca/notes/04/R-69A17000.htm While I concede that we are not in a court of law, the basis of my comment regarding bolstering can be found in the legal field. I quoted that in full lest I be accused of removing it from its context, but to be clear: Calling something "unbiased" or an example of "clarity and good sense" doesn't make it so. In fact, the only reason you seem to have for such assertions is to bolster the credibility of what TnO posted without doing the slightest bit to confirm it, verify it, or contribute to the discussion. You're certainly welcome to the opinion and welcome to express it, as I am welcome to challenge TnO's post and call out the fallacious effect of your decision to bolster it. In other words, the tactic of bolstering does not work against me and it should not work for anyone else who may be reading.

I started the Exodus thread but haven't fed it. It's on my to-do list.

Who am I trying to divide? Please inform us all, or STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS. By the way, thank you for quoting my post so I could go back and fix the grammatical errors.