Discussion:
Why the literalist intepretation of the Bible is wrong
(too old to reply)
George
2007-06-25 23:59:43 UTC
Permalink
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in
the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed
in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization,
and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis,
President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many
regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander
Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures,
both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South
Carolina
"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A
statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited
by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African
descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot
separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.
3

Quotation from the 21st century:
"If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on
relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an
oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada
staff.

Overview:
The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of
many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been
"sanctioned in the Bible." They argued that:

Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.
The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point
of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24
hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having
committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4
Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human
slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is
profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal
opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there
is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.

Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery
in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was
eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in
understanding came at a cost. [some] Christians wondered why the Bible was
so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the
Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it
accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing
prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities,
burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in
"the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained. [Others still don't
get it.]

Passages from the Hebrew Scriptures which sanction slavery:
There are many Bible passages which directly sanction and regulate slavery.
Quoting from the KJV (except as noted) some of these passages are:

The Ten Commandments: Rabbi M.J. Raphall (circa 1861) commented that
the 10th commandment places slaves "under the same protection as any other
species of lawful property...That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d,
and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians
as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and
protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments--how dare you
denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he
emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to
give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil'
(Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you
that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?" 1 Exodus
20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."

Deuteronomy 5:21"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife,
neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his
manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is
thy neighbor's.

Beating and Killing Slaves: Although an owner could beat a male or
female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth.
The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was
acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for
two days: Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid,
with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for
he is his money [property]."
Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or
the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's
sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's
tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Emancipation of Slaves: Slaves in ancient Israel were automatically
emancipated after 6 years of slavery, but only if they were Jewish.
However, if the slave owner "gave" the slave a wife, the owner could keep
the wife and any children as his property. Passages in Exodus state that
female slaves who were sold into slavery by their fathers would be slaves
forever. A corresponding passage in Exodus contradicts this; it required
female slaves to be given their freedom after 6 years. One could purchase a
slave from a foreign nation or from foreigners living with them. These
slaves would remain in slavery forever, unless the owner chooses to frees
them An Israelite who was a slave could be freed by a family member or by
himself if he had the money. The cost of freeing a slave was computed on
the basis of the number of years to the next Jubilee Year; this could be 1
to 50 years. Male Israelite slaves were automatically freed during the
Jubilee Year. Depending upon which verse was being followed, female
Israelite slaves might also have been freed at that time. Foreign slaves
were out of luck. Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years
he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he
came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then
his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and
she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her
master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "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."

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a
maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come
from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy
some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans
born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them
to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,
but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed
again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's
son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may
redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon
with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the
year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the
number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with
him."

Restrictions on the Re-selling of Slaves: A slave was considered a
piece of property, and thus could normally be resold to anyone at any time
for any reason. However, special rules applied for Hebrew slaves. If a
person bought a female slave from her father and she displeased him, he had
no right to sell her to a foreign owner. If the owner required her to marry
his son, then the owner was required to treat her like a daughter-in-law.
If the owner marries his slave and later marries another woman, he was
required to treat his slave as he previously had. If he violates any of
these requirements, then she must be emancipated. But she would leave
without any money or means of supporting herself; she would be free, but
abandoned. Exodus 21:8: "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed
her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a
strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully
with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her
after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her
raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not
these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

Sexual Activity with an Engaged Female Slave: A man who rapes or
engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married
to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to be
forgiven. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no
punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not
engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity. Leviticus 19:20-22:
"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed
to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be
scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he
shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the
tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the
priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass
offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which
he hath done shall be forgiven him."

Purchasing a Brother as a Slave: If a man is sold into slavery due to
poverty and his brother purchases him, then the man must be treated as a
hired hand or as a guest of the brother. He would be not be free to leave,
but was required to serve until the Jubilee Year, which occurs every 50
years. This would often require him to serve his brother for the rest of
his life. Some translations (e.g. Living Bible) refer to"a fellow
Israelite" rather than "brother." The fate of a woman being bought by her
brother is unclear. Leviticus 25:39: "And if thy brother that dwelleth by
thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to
serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he
shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then
shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall
return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he
return."

Punishment for Criminals or Debtors: A person who kidnaps a fellow
Israelite and makes him a slave or sells him into slavery would be stoned
to death. If a thief is caught and cannot make full restitution, he would
be sold as a slave. A debtor who could not pay back creditors might be sold
into slavery or have his children sold. Exodus 21:16: "And he that
stealeth [kidnaps] a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand,
he shall surely be put to death."

Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his
brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or
selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from
among you."

Exodus 22:3: "...he should make full restitution; if he have
nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

II Kings 4:1: "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of
the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is
dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the LORD: and the creditor
is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."

Enslaving Women Captives: In a foreign war, an Israelite could take
any woman as a slave-wife, even if it were against her will. He would put
her through what could be regarded as a period of ritual abuse. If he later
dislikes her, he can grant her freedom, but cannot sell her to another
slave owner. Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against
thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands,
and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful
woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her
head, and pare her nails; 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 [i.e.
rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be
thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt
let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money,
thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
Deuteronomy 20:14"But the women, and the little ones, and the
cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou
take unto thyself"

Runaway Slaves: If a slave runs away from his owner and comes to you,
then you are not to return the slave to his owner. Rather, you are to let
him live in any town in your area. Deuteronomy 23:15-16: "Thou shalt not
deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto
thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he
shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not
oppress him."

Circumcision of Slaves: A male slave would be required to undergo
circumcision. This would be a very painful operation for an adult. It was
life-threatening in the days before modern medical techniques. A small
percentage of slaves would die from infection caused by the operation.

Genesis 17:13: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with
thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your
flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Genesis 17:27: "And all the men of his house, born in the house,
and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."

Priests as Slave Owners: God ordered Moses to wage war against the
Midianites, because the latter had attempted to convert the Israelites to
their religion. They Israelite soldiers killed every male Midianite, but
initially spared the lives of the women and children. Moses was angry at
this act of mercy, and in an act of near genocide, ordered that all of the
women and children be murdered in cold blood, allowing only 32,000 female
virgins to live. All of the booty, including the surviving girls and virgin
women, was then divided into two equal portions: one for the soldiers and
the rest for the people of Israel. 0.1% of the slaves from the first half
and 2% of the slaves from the second half were considered the Lord's share.
i.e. they were to be given to the priests. The priests ended up with 365
female virgins; one for each day of the year. Numbers 31:28-47: "And levy
a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one
soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the
asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar
the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.And of the children of
Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the
beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give
them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the
LORD."

Slaves Owning Slaves: Saul's slave Ziba owned 20 slaves of his own: 2
Samuel 9:10: "...Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants."

Raping Slaves: Being property, female slaves could be required to
engage in sexual intercourse and become pregnant against their will. The
perpetrator could be their owner, or anyone that their owner designates:
Genesis 16:1-2: "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had
an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram,
Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in
unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram
hearkened to the voice of Sarai."

Genesis 30:3-4: "And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto
her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by
her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto
her."

Genesis 30:9-10: "When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she
took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid
bare Jacob a son."


Slaves Given the weekly Sabbath off: Slaves were not required to work
on Saturday. Exodus 20:10: "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD
thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy
stranger that is within thy gates:"

Passages from the Christian Scriptures which Sanction Slavery

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)

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as
saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was
very much a part of life in Palestine and in the rest of the Roman Empire
during New Testament times. Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861,
"Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament
nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even
preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent
Christian teachers [St. Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his
runaway slave." 1

People in debt (and their children) were still being sold into slavery in
New Testament times:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded
him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and
payment to be made."

Priests still owned slaves:

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one
of the maids of the high priest:"

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is
important to realize that the term "servant" in the King James Version of
the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid.
Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with
many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who
did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the
institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of
having taken it:

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day
when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will
cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself,
neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But
he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten
with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much
required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the
more."

One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's
infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that
they obey Christ:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your
heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the
servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will
doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good
thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be
bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing
threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there
respect of persons with him."


Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just
and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count
their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them
not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service,
because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These
things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the
doctrine which is according to godliness;"


In his defense, St. Paul incorrectly expected that Jesus would return in
the very near future. This might have demotivated him from speaking out
against slavery or other social evils in the Roman Empire. Also he regarded
slaves as persons of worth whom at least God considers of importance. St.
Paul mentioned that both slaves and free persons are sons of God, and thus
all part of the body of Christ and spiritually equal.

1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have
been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus."

Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision
nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all,
and in all."

St. Paul apparently saw no evil in the concept of one person owning another
as a piece of property. In his Letter to Philemon, he had every opportunity
to discuss the immorality of slave-owning, but declined to do so.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16, cited above, requires a Jew to protect a runaway
slave, and to not return him/her to their owner.. However, St. Paul
violated the law. While in prison, he met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the
slave of a Christian. He was presumably owned by Pheliemon. Rather than
give the slave sanctuary, he returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint
that he would like Pheliemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not
actually request it. See the Letter to Philemon in the Christian
Scriptures.
______________________________________
A simple message for all you believers who think that a literal
interpretation of the Bible is the way to go. A literal interpretation of
the Bible is wrong, has always been wrong, and always will be wrong. If
you believe in a literalist interpretation (aka, creationism, Dominionism,
Southern Baptists, etc) of the Bible, then you also believe that slavery is
morally justified. And if so, then I might remind you that the Civil War is
over: Your side lost. If you don't believe that slavery is morally
justified, then you should stop with the literalist intepretations of the
Bible. You cannot have it both ways.

Cheers,

George
d***@adelphia.net
2007-06-28 00:12:20 UTC
Permalink
I've nearly given up posting here because of the exact kind of thing
happening here.
George, bless his heart, means well. He just doesn't understand how to
approach things from any other view point than his own.
Most of us don't do much better, so I suppose it is to be expected.
It's just frustrating because it leads to the same errors being
committed over and over again. Basically there is a lack of ability to
see the other side at all because we carry the fundamental
presuppositions of our own worldview into any thinking we might do
about the other.

I'm going to take a different route on this issue than most.
George uses this issue as a PROOF that the bible can't be taken
literally. And he does this because Slavery is considered an evil that
God could not possibly support. This is the assumption underlying it
all.
The problem is that it is humanistic, not biblical. If you're going to
prove the bible wrong, prove it wrong on its own philosophy.
For us, our individual rights and freedoms are paramount and must
NEVER be trampled upon. As Americans [and most westerners as well], we
accept this a priori. Hence slavery is a grave evil. But might I
suggest that our personal freedom is NOT Gods priority?
Under humanism, the ideal is to throw off all shackles and no one has
dominion over us.
But under the biblical worldview, we are already enslaved to our own
desires and flesh and sin.

In the biblical worldview, the PROBLEM is that men have tried to throw
off their yoke to God. In doing so, they have taken on a bigger yoke:
sin. So in the biblical worldview, God is relatively unconcerned about
whether you happen to be a slave or a freeman. He has an eternity in
mind. Those things existed, they had regulations.

That is not to say that the Bible says it SHOULD exist- you will NOT
find that. Only that it did exist and was therefore under
regulations.

Hopefully, if nothing else, at least the skeptic could learn to see
things from a different angle.
DKleinecke
2007-06-29 02:25:12 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 27, 5:12 pm, ***@adelphia.net wrote:

some material omitted
Post by d***@adelphia.net
In the biblical worldview, the PROBLEM is that men have tried to throw
sin.
I doubt whether anyone has ever tried to throw off their yoke to God -
understanding that phrase literally. There are two quite different
responses that seem to be being confused. One is the response of
people (called atheists) who have decided that there is no God and
therefore no yoke. The other is that of people who have decided that
their yoke to God has degenerated into a yoke to religion. It seems to
me that this is much commoner than atheism.

The word "sin" has a long and complicated history. So far as I can
tell the underlying meaning was and still remains "being out of
communion with God". We could have a good argument about whether or
not an atheist, who denies that there is a God, could be in a state of
sin, meaning out of communion.

Understood this way sin cannot be a yoke. It is the denial of God's
yoke.

What then is the negative consequence of throwing off the yoke to God?
Other than God's love, which atheists appear to get along fine
without, what does one lose when one enters a state of sin?

I conclude that nothing much would be lost that is of any secular
value. The argument for God does not depend on the benefits of
communion with God.

But all that I have saying is more or less irrelevant. There is little
or no desire among mankind to throw off the yoke of God. But there is
a great desire to throw off the yoke of religion.

If you are so narcissistic that you believe that your religion is the
unique religion of God and throwing off its yoke is equivalent to
throwing off God there is nothing much I can say to you. I strongly
doubt that God agrees with you.
Post by d***@adelphia.net
So in the biblical worldview, God is relatively unconcerned about
whether you happen to be a slave or a freeman. He has an eternity in
mind. Those things existed, they had regulations.
The best regulation they could have had would have been to outlaw
them. God, of course, has an eternity in mind and did not regulate
them. It was men, acting in the name of God (that is, some religion),
that regulated these things. Men can just as easily deregulate them.
Post by d***@adelphia.net
That is not to say that the Bible says it SHOULD exist- you will NOT
find that. Only that it did exist and was therefore under regulations.
There are fundamental things that religion has never gotten around to
regulating. Not even Islam has a dogmatic religious foundation for
ownership of property or even marriage (although it does impact
somewhat on marriage). The Catholic church is in more less the same
place as Islam in these matters. Protestant Christianity, because it
is based on the Bible, has next to nothing to say on either issue. On
these matters we must use humanist judgment in order to run the world.

More or less parenthetically I observe that capitalism is, at some
level, a religion which maintains that God's most important function
is to preserve property rights and contracts. Note that abolishing
slavery was an offense against property rights.

Personally I prefer Christianity to Capitalism..
George
2007-07-02 02:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@adelphia.net
I've nearly given up posting here because of the exact kind of thing
happening here.
George, bless his heart, means well. He just doesn't understand how to
approach things from any other view point than his own.
Most of us don't do much better, so I suppose it is to be expected.
It's just frustrating because it leads to the same errors being
committed over and over again. Basically there is a lack of ability to
see the other side at all because we carry the fundamental
presuppositions of our own worldview into any thinking we might do
about the other.
I'm going to take a different route on this issue than most.
George uses this issue as a PROOF that the bible can't be taken
literally. And he does this because Slavery is considered an evil that
God could not possibly support. This is the assumption underlying it
all.
The problem is that it is humanistic, not biblical.
Not Biblical? The Bible itself contains many passages promoting slavery.
I think you need to re-read your Bible.
Post by d***@adelphia.net
If you're going to prove the bible wrong, prove it wrong on its own
philosophy.
For us, our individual rights and freedoms are paramount and must
NEVER be trampled upon. As Americans [and most westerners as well], we
accept this a priori. Hence slavery is a grave evil. But might I
suggest that our personal freedom is NOT Gods priority?
Ok, and you have a personal line to God, and so actually know what his
priorities are?
Post by d***@adelphia.net
Under humanism, the ideal is to throw off all shackles and no one has
dominion over us.
But under the biblical worldview, we are already enslaved to our own
desires and flesh and sin.
In the biblical worldview, the PROBLEM is that men have tried to throw
sin. So in the biblical worldview, God is relatively unconcerned about
whether you happen to be a slave or a freeman. He has an eternity in
mind. Those things existed, they had regulations.
That is not to say that the Bible says it SHOULD exist- you will NOT
find that. Only that it did exist and was therefore under
regulations.
This is a copout. You are saying that because slavery existed during
Biblical times, that that makes the fact acceptable, and therefore,
amenable to regulation. Gee, I think Robert E. Lee and others came to
exactly the same conclusion.
Post by d***@adelphia.net
Hopefully, if nothing else, at least the skeptic could learn to see
things from a different angle.
The fact is that you cannot have your cake and eat it too? You cannot say
that Genesis is morally and factually true but not Leviticus, if you accept
a literal interpretation of the Bible. You cannot pick and choose. Either
it is true and morally justified or it isn't.

George
l***@hotmail.com
2007-07-02 02:05:00 UTC
Permalink
First off I would like to commend dlwals response. On of the
better responses I've seen here in some time -balanced and
reasonable. SRC use to have more of this sort of response.
Post by DKleinecke
Post by d***@adelphia.net
In the biblical worldview, the PROBLEM is that men have tried to throw
sin.
I doubt whether anyone has ever tried to throw off their yoke to God -
understanding that phrase literally.
I repeatedly find that the literal methodology is only expressed in
the
most hyper view. Literalism allows for figures of speech as a normal
means of communicating truth. Literalism does not interpret ultra-
literally so you are mistaken in your statement that the discarding
of a yoke is normatively understood as being figurative.
Post by DKleinecke
The word "sin" has a long and complicated history. So far as I can
tell the underlying meaning was and still remains "being out of
communion with God".
I would suggest you view it as an "inclination." Orginally, man had
but one inclination/bias/orientation, that being dependent solely upon
Divine revelation and ever seeking to please God in its reception and
reconstruction. But when man "sinned," the act was merely the effect
not the cause. The cause was that by a self-determination, man
inclined himself away from God. As soon as he reoriented himself, as
God foretold, in that very moment he died spiritually with that
causing
physical degeneration. Sin is the inclination of man or angel to
please
self instead of pleasing God. Sins are merely the external exhibition
of the inward depravity.
Post by DKleinecke
We could have a good argument about whether or
not an atheist, who denies that there is a God, could be in a state of
sin, meaning out of communion.
All men are self-inclined after Adam's fall. This is the meaning of
the doctrine of total depravity. All men are only inclined to self.
As
Paul quotes the Psalms, "No man seeks after God."
Post by DKleinecke
Understood this way sin cannot be a yoke. It is the denial of God's
yoke.
What then is the negative consequence of throwing off the yoke to God?
Other than God's love, which atheists appear to get along fine
without, what does one lose when one enters a state of sin?
Man is born in the state of sin. That is why Christ had to be born of
a virgin because as the male XY determines physical birth, equally
it is the male who procreates the immaterial birth as well. When
Adam died spiritually, all who resided in his loins inherited that
fallen
immateral nature as well.
Post by DKleinecke
I conclude that nothing much would be lost that is of any secular
value. The argument for God does not depend on the benefits of
communion with God.
Oh but it does. "No man comes unto except the Father draw him."
"All died." "Dead in tresspasses and sins... by nature children of
wrath." "Wrath abiding" is present tense. "Unless a man be
born from above he cannot SEE the kingdom of God."
Post by DKleinecke
But all that I have saying is more or less irrelevant. There is little
or no desire among mankind to throw off the yoke of God. But there is
a great desire to throw off the yoke of religion.
The whole inclination of the unregenerate man is to run away from
the authority of God. But what is the result. Where do you run?
Even if you run to the furthest side of the heavens, you are still
under His heavens. To turn away from His authority is to turn into
His judicial punishment.
Post by DKleinecke
If you are so narcissistic that you believe that your religion is the
unique religion of God and throwing off its yoke is equivalent to
throwing off God there is nothing much I can say to you. I strongly
doubt that God agrees with you.
No one can know anything unless he knows it exhaustively. Man is
finite and this is just a basic tennet of his finiteness. Left to
himself,
man must of a necessity slide into scepticism. Only via Biblical
Christianity does man have a true basis for knowing real reality.
"And these things I write unto you that ye may KNOW...." It's
only when the creature is born again from above that he regains the
original capacity to derive his interpretation of reality from the All
Knowing and incomprehensive self-contained God.
Post by DKleinecke
There are fundamental things that religion has never gotten around to
regulating. Not even Islam has a dogmatic religious foundation
Truth necessarily denies untruth. Doctrines divide because
antithetical thinking is rooted in the nature of God.
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-03 02:37:18 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by George
Post by d***@adelphia.net
I'm going to take a different route on this issue than most.
George uses this issue as a PROOF that the bible can't be taken
literally. And he does this because Slavery is considered an evil that
God could not possibly support. This is the assumption underlying it
all.
The problem is that it is humanistic, not biblical.
Not Biblical? The Bible itself contains many passages promoting slavery.
Not true. It contains meny passages mentioning or regulatins slavery, but the
closest it ever gets to _promoting_ slavery is when it says to take prisoners of
war as slaves instead of killing them.

But even this is not -promoting- slavery.
Post by George
I think you need to re-read your Bible.
If you really think those passages promote slavery, then it is you who has to
re-read it.

[snip]
Post by George
This is a copout. You are saying that because slavery existed during
Biblical times, that that makes the fact acceptable, and therefore,
amenable to regulation.
No, that is not what he said. So it is not just the Bible you need to reread.

[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-05 00:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Not Biblical? The Bible itself contains many passages promoting slavery.
Not true. It contains meny passages mentioning or regulatins
slavery, but the closest it ever gets to _promoting_ slavery is when
it says to take prisoners of war as slaves instead of killing them.
Umm, I take it that you think that passages regulating slavery is an
indication that the Bible means for you NOT to have slaves! Get a clue.
If the Bible has passages that regulate slavery, then it certainly DOES
indicate that slavery is acceptable, and certainly was at the time those
regulations were written. To suggest otherwise is simply Bible
apologetics.

George
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-05 23:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Not Biblical? The Bible itself contains many passages promoting slavery.
Not true. It contains meny passages mentioning or regulatins
slavery, but the closest it ever gets to _promoting_ slavery is when
it says to take prisoners of war as slaves instead of killing them.
Umm, I take it that you think that passages regulating slavery is an
indication that the Bible means for you NOT to have slaves! Get a clue.
It is you who needs to "get a clue". For you have claimed to say what I think,
yet said something SO different, anyone who has passed even a high school course
in "critical thinking" can spot the difference right away.

No, George, I never said nor implied that it was such an indication. Rather I
said that it regulates it _without_ either endorsing or forbidding it. Not the
same as what you said, not by a long shot.
Post by George
If the Bible has passages that regulate slavery, then it certainly DOES
indicate that slavery is acceptable,
Certainly NOT. Rather, what is certain is that you indicate your own near total
ignorance of really basic hermeneutics. Even just by making this gross
mis-statement.
Post by George
and certainly was at the time those
regulations were written. To suggest otherwise is simply Bible
apologetics.
First, you show you do not understand hermeneutics. Now you show you do not
understand apologetics either. Learn what these words mean before you pretend to
know what you are talking about.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
d***@adelphia.net
2007-07-05 23:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by d***@adelphia.net
I'm going to take a different route on this issue than most.
George uses this issue as a PROOF that the bible can't be taken
literally. And he does this because Slavery is considered an evil that
God could not possibly support. This is the assumption underlying it
all.
The problem is that it is humanistic, not biblical.
Not Biblical? The Bible itself contains many passages promoting slavery.
I think you need to re-read your Bible.
Well, before I have to re-read the entire Bible, perhaps you could
simply read my post again. I stated that there is a problem; and that
IT [the problem] is humanistic, not biblical. Your response seems to
indicate that you believe the IT refers to slavery.
But rereading the post ought to clear up the idea. What I said was
that there is a humanistic assumption about God that is not biblical.
The humanistic assumption about God is that he could not possibly
support slavery.

Follow along with me, I personally think that God is relatively
unconcerned about slavery. That is what I wrote. Why then did you post
this response?
It appears as if you gave a knee-jerk response to a pre-supposed
denial. That indicates to me that you are not really reading or
attempting to comprehend what was written.

This is probably thinking deeper about the issue than you may be used
to, but try to look at the assumptions you made in your argument. You
are using Gods alleged support of slavery as a PROOF that the Bible
cannot be literally interpreted. If you were to put that in a logic
syllogism, what would it look like?

Premise 1. A literal interpretation of the Bible supports slavery
Premise 2. God would never support slavery
Conclusion: Therefore, a literal interpretation of the bible cannot be
from God

Or at least something like that.....
You seemed to assume that I was challenging premise 1, when in fact I
was challenging premise 2.
It is understandable that you might enter the forum thinking that
premise 1 is where most of us would attempt to refute the argument,
but I told you up front that I was going to take a different approach.
Your response tells me you haven't comprehended much of what I wrote.
Post by George
Post by d***@adelphia.net
But might I suggest that our personal freedom
is NOT Gods priority?
Ok, and you have a personal line to God, and so actually know what his
priorities are?
There really isn't anything to respond to here, except to say that
this is an emotional response, rather than a logical response. We were
talking about what the bible says, so all we have to do is read the
bible. There is no need for a "personal line to God".
Post by George
Post by d***@adelphia.net
Under humanism, the ideal is to throw off all shackles and no one has
dominion over us.
But under the biblical worldview, we are already enslaved to our own
desires and flesh and sin.
In the biblical worldview, the PROBLEM is that men have tried to throw
sin. So in the biblical worldview, God is relatively unconcerned about
whether you happen to be a slave or a freeman. He has an eternity in
mind. Those things existed, they had regulations.
That is not to say that the Bible says it SHOULD exist- you will NOT
find that. Only that it did exist and was therefore under
regulations.
This is a copout. You are saying that because slavery existed during
Biblical times, that that makes the fact acceptable, and therefore,
amenable to regulation. Gee, I think Robert E. Lee and others came to
exactly the same conclusion.
Unfortunately, this is another canned, emotional response
I challenged the tacit premise that -God could not support slavery-
with biblical reasons, which is acceptable because this is ultimately
a debate over what the bible says about God. If you are going to make
assumptions about the nature of God as the bible describes him, then
the nature of God needs to be understood from the bible, and NOT from
individual assumptions about what he should or would be otherwise.
Your second premise was faulty because it makes assumptions about God
that are NOT in line with what the bible says.

And your response to that is to say that you "think Robert E. Lee and
others came to exactly the same conclusion"??????
I think this would be called guilt by association and it is a logic
fallacy meant to derail the actual argument from its tracks and
transfer the end blame to the opponent by evoking some Evil and then
loosely associating the opponent with that. The reason it is a logic
fallacy is that it never actually addresses the argument at all.

Look, you probably need to step back and think about the issue a
little more.
You've kept up the EXACT thing I warned about: approaching another
world view without taking into consideration its fundamental
presuppositions.
You are bound to end up with straw-man arguments unless you can step
back from your own presuppositions. And that means having to
understand what those presuppositions are in the first place.



dave
George
2007-07-09 02:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@adelphia.net
Post by George
Post by d***@adelphia.net
I'm going to take a different route on this issue than most.
George uses this issue as a PROOF that the bible can't be taken
literally. And he does this because Slavery is considered an evil that
God could not possibly support. This is the assumption underlying it
all.
The problem is that it is humanistic, not biblical.
Not Biblical? The Bible itself contains many passages promoting
slavery.
I think you need to re-read your Bible.
Well, before I have to re-read the entire Bible, perhaps you could
simply read my post again. I stated that there is a problem; and that
IT [the problem] is humanistic, not biblical. Your response seems to
indicate that you believe the IT refers to slavery.
But rereading the post ought to clear up the idea. What I said was
that there is a humanistic assumption about God that is not biblical.
The humanistic assumption about God is that he could not possibly
support slavery.
Follow along with me, I personally think that God is relatively
unconcerned about slavery. That is what I wrote. Why then did you post
this response?
It appears as if you gave a knee-jerk response to a pre-supposed
denial. That indicates to me that you are not really reading or
attempting to comprehend what was written.
This is probably thinking deeper about the issue than you may be used
to, but try to look at the assumptions you made in your argument. You
are using Gods alleged support of slavery as a PROOF that the Bible
cannot be literally interpreted. If you were to put that in a logic
syllogism, what would it look like?
Premise 1. A literal interpretation of the Bible supports slavery
Fact: Literal intepretations of the Bible have been used to support
slavery.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm
Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is
sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to
Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of
the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the
arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many
regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander
Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy
Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of
South Carolina
"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro
suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian
pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church
(USA).
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his
African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man
cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry
Hammond. 3
Post by d***@adelphia.net
Premise 2. God would never support slavery
Conclusion: Therefore, a literal interpretation of the bible cannot be
from God
Argument from consequences. That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is
that the literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong, regardless of
whether or not it comes from an imaginary deity.
Post by d***@adelphia.net
Or at least something like that.....
You seemed to assume that I was challenging premise 1, when in fact I
was challenging premise 2.
Before you can challenge premise 2 (which wasn't a premise I proposed) you
have to prove that a God exists which could support (or not) slavery. Good
luck with that. People like you have tried for going on 4,000 years so
far, and haven't collected a shred of evidence to prove such a notion.

Goodbye, Dave. When you find evidence that God exists, come back and we'll
talk.

George
George
2007-07-09 02:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Not Biblical? The Bible itself contains many passages promoting
slavery.
Not true. It contains meny passages mentioning or regulatins
slavery, but the closest it ever gets to _promoting_ slavery is when
it says to take prisoners of war as slaves instead of killing them.
Umm, I take it that you think that passages regulating slavery is an
indication that the Bible means for you NOT to have slaves! Get a clue.
It is you who needs to "get a clue". For you have claimed to say what I
think,
yet said something SO different, anyone who has passed even a high school
course
in "critical thinking" can spot the difference right away.
No, George, I never said nor implied that it was such an indication.
Rather I
said that it regulates it _without_ either endorsing or forbidding it.
Not the
same as what you said, not by a long shot.
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
If the Bible has passages that regulate slavery, then it certainly DOES
indicate that slavery is acceptable,
Certainly NOT. Rather, what is certain is that you indicate your own near
total
ignorance of really basic hermeneutics. Even just by making this gross
mis-statement.
Fact 1: There were many people in Biblical times who either owned slaves
or were themselves slaves.

Fact 2: The laws and regulations in the Bible governing slavery are part of
what allowed fact 1 to exist.

Deny it all you want, but these are the historical facts.

George
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-09 22:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Not Biblical? The Bible itself contains many passages promoting
slavery.
Not true. It contains meny passages mentioning or regulatins
slavery, but the closest it ever gets to _promoting_ slavery is when
it says to take prisoners of war as slaves instead of killing them.
Umm, I take it that you think that passages regulating slavery is an
indication that the Bible means for you NOT to have slaves! Get a clue.
It is you who needs to "get a clue". For you have claimed to say
what I think, yet said something SO different, anyone who has
passed even a high school course in "critical thinking" can spot
the difference right away.
No, George, I never said nor implied that it was such an
indication. Rather I said that it regulates it _without_ either
endorsing or forbidding it. Not the same as what you said, not by
a long shot.
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
If the Bible has passages that regulate slavery, then it certainly DOES
indicate that slavery is acceptable,
Certainly NOT. Rather, what is certain is that you indicate your
own near total ignorance of really basic hermeneutics. Even just by
making this gross mis-statement.
Fact 1: There were many people in Biblical times who either owned slaves
or were themselves slaves.
This fact does not support your conclusion at all.
Post by George
Fact 2: The laws and regulations in the Bible governing slavery are
part of what allowed fact 1 to exist.
This so-called 'fact' is not even a fact. It would have existed
anyway, as it has existed in ALL pre-industrial societies. Take a look
at all the _other_ societies of that same time, those not at _all_
governed by Biblical law or custom: they all had slavery too, usually
much harsher than that in the Bible.
Post by George
Deny it all you want, but these are the historical facts.
The _real_ historical fact, which YOU keep denying, is that it was the
change in society due to _economics_ that made the abolition of
slavery possible. Until then, all pre-industrial societies had some
form of slavery. Even Britain only abolished slavery only after the
_lost_ all their slave-holding colonies to rebellions (such as the one
we just celebrated this 4th of July).
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-10 02:08:09 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.

...
Post by Matthew Johnson
The _real_ historical fact, which YOU keep denying, is that it was the
change in society due to _economics_ that made the abolition of
slavery possible. Until then, all pre-industrial societies had some
form of slavery. Even Britain only abolished slavery only after the
_lost_ all their slave-holding colonies to rebellions (such as the one
we just celebrated this 4th of July).
And if your Jesus had simply proclaimed that slavery was wrong, would that
have stopped it sooner? Would it have had any effect? I think it would
have. So, if he was such a moral man, why did he encourage it by telling
slave owners how to punish their slaves?

George

---

[I think you're confused. I just checked out the NT for uses of slav*.
In the Gospels and the undisputed Pauline letters, it is entirely
metaphorical or in parables, except for 1 Cor 12:13 where it is said
that in Christ there are no slaves or free -- we are all equal in the
Lord, and Philemon, where Paul asks a master to free a slave (but the
situation is special, so this is not a general requirement). In a few
other letters, including some attributed to Paul, slaves are told to
obey their masters and masters to treat slaves well. I see nothing
about how to punish slaves. I also see nothing telling Christians to
free their slaves.

I don't know enough about 1st Cent slavery to see whether there were
situations where slavery was always immoral, when it was done in
accordance with Christian standards. As I understand it, slavery
typically resulted from war. It seems that slavery was part of a whole
way of life involving war and conquest that the best Christians always
considered as wrong.

Whether there were situations when slavery was the lesser of evils, I
can't say. But it seems pretty clear that American slavery was not
done in accordance with NT requirements, nor is other modern slavery.
My estimate is that in the end it's not possible to enslave people and
still treat them as equals, which is what the NT would require.

--clh
l***@hotmail.com
2007-07-11 02:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
I don't know enough about 1st Cent slavery to see whether there were
situations where slavery was always immoral, when it was done in
accordance with Christian standards. As I understand it, slavery
typically resulted from war. It seems that slavery was part of a whole
way of life involving war and conquest that the best Christians always
considered as wrong.
But wouldn't this be like a present day situation where a missionary
goes into a village where men have several wives. Now after
conversion, does that missionary command those men that they have to
dismiss all but one wife? Now where is the gentleness in that. It
would mean that those women would be without housing or provision.
This would be very similar to the 1st C situation concerning slavery.
It would have completely disrupted the form of society to suddenly
dismiss all slaves. Also, it presumes, as with the wives, that they
want to be dismissed to begin with or that those slaves by and in
large suffer for their slavery. Slavery was very often like a
non-union shop where the harder you worked and the more inventive you
are, the more opportunities you have for advancement. After all,
wasn't Joseph and Daniel in reality, slaves to Pharaoh and old Neb?

I just think this whole line of argumentation is unsound to conclude
that ultraliteralism destroys literalism. I also think the original
detractor does not have a learned understanding of the literal
methodology.
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-11 02:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
...
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
First of all, it was a stupid question. More important, I _did_ answer it, just
a few lines further down.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
The _real_ historical fact, which YOU keep denying, is that it was the
change in society due to _economics_ that made the abolition of
slavery possible. Until then, all pre-industrial societies had some
form of slavery. Even Britain only abolished slavery only after the
_lost_ all their slave-holding colonies to rebellions (such as the one
we just celebrated this 4th of July).
And if your Jesus had simply proclaimed that slavery was wrong, would that
have stopped it sooner? Would it have had any effect? I think it would
have. So, if he was such a moral man, why did he encourage it by telling
slave owners how to punish their slaves?
Your question is illegitimate. You are presuming what is clearly contrary to
fact. He did _NOT_ encourage it. You are _still_ ignoring the historial facts.

[snip]
Post by George
Whether there were situations when slavery was the lesser of evils, I
can't say. But it seems pretty clear that American slavery was not
done in accordance with NT requirements, nor is other modern slavery.
My estimate is that in the end it's not possible to enslave people and
still treat them as equals, which is what the NT would require.
How do you see the NT as requring them to be treated as equals? What part of
"let every soul be subject to higher authorities (Rom 13:1)" did you not
understand, Charles?
Post by George
--clh
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

----

[Rom 13:1 refers to governments. However beyond that, we get into the
question of what it means for all humans to be created equal. Clearly
it doesn't mean that no one ever has authority over another. I was
thinking of Gal 3:28, what says that in Christ there is no slave nor
free. My claim is that slavery, at least as practiced in modern times,
involves a kind of control that will never be consistent with Gal 3:28.
--clh]
d***@adelphia.net
2007-07-11 02:04:16 UTC
Permalink
I don't know why my posts are not getting through, but every other
attempt ends up lost. Hope this one goes through.....

George, you are still missing the point.
You have assumed your own worldview and its assumptions are
automatically correct in your critique of the bible. You just don't
seem to be able to think outside your own box. But if you are going to
debate a position, you ought to at least be able to state your
opponent's position to his satisfaction. You seem uninterested in even
considering what was said.

Now if you want to make dogmatic statements that the bible is wrong
because you don't personally like slavery, you are entitled to do so.
Perhaps you really just wanted us to know you think that. Thanks for
sharing and have a nice life.
But if you think your personal dislike of slavery is proof that a
literal interpretation of the bible is false, then think again. All
you have done is fall into the same trap I warned about in the first
post.
You don't accept the existence of the God of the Bible, we do. If he
exists as the bible says, then reality is going to be different than
the way you believe it to be.
Andy
2007-07-12 00:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
...
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer for....
George
2007-07-12 00:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@adelphia.net
I don't know why my posts are not getting through, but every other
attempt ends up lost. Hope this one goes through.....
George, you are still missing the point.
You have assumed your own worldview and its assumptions are
automatically correct in your critique of the bible. You just don't
seem to be able to think outside your own box. But if you are going to
debate a position, you ought to at least be able to state your
opponent's position to his satisfaction. You seem uninterested in even
considering what was said.
Now if you want to make dogmatic statements that the bible is wrong
because you don't personally like slavery, you are entitled to do so.
What is dogmatic about stating facts? Is it dogmatic to expect that if I
drop an apple that it will fall and strike the ground? Fact: Slavery was
rampant in the ancient world. Fact: None of your "moral" holy men did
anything to stop it. Not one of them even made a disparaging remark about
it, and in fact, encouraged it by making up guidelines for slave owners to
go by when dealing with their slaves. Even Jesus did this, as I've pointed
out. What does God know about slavery now that he didn't then? Did God
have a sudden change of heart, and if so, how is it that an omnipotent
deity could have been so wrong and immoral as to allow slavery to continue
when he allegedly (according to Christian doctrine) "so loved man that he
sent his only son" to save us? Why was he not interested in saving slaves?
What does that say about the morality of your god (never mind that he also
was personally involved in genocide, if the literalist view is correct)?

George
George
2007-07-12 00:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
...
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
First of all, it was a stupid question. More important, I _did_ answer
it, just
a few lines further down.
Does the 1st amendment to the constitution support freedom of religion and
freedom of speech, or not? It wasn't a stupid question. Obviously, you
are afraid to answer it, or else are unable to do so. It's ok to say "I
don't know".
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
The _real_ historical fact, which YOU keep denying, is that it was the
change in society due to _economics_ that made the abolition of
slavery possible. Until then, all pre-industrial societies had some
form of slavery. Even Britain only abolished slavery only after the
_lost_ all their slave-holding colonies to rebellions (such as the one
we just celebrated this 4th of July).
And if your Jesus had simply proclaimed that slavery was wrong, would
that
have stopped it sooner? Would it have had any effect? I think it would
have. So, if he was such a moral man, why did he encourage it by telling
slave owners how to punish their slaves?
Your question is illegitimate. You are presuming what is clearly contrary
to
fact. He did _NOT_ encourage it. You are _still_ ignoring the historial
facts.
[snip]
If Jesus tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment to slaves,
he is certainly not condemning it. The historic facts are the slavery was
rampant during Biblical times. The historic facts is that none of you holy
men did anything to stop the practice, and in fact, wrote laws that
perpetuated it. Those are the facts.

George
George
2007-07-12 00:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by George
I don't know enough about 1st Cent slavery to see whether there were
situations where slavery was always immoral, when it was done in
accordance with Christian standards. As I understand it, slavery
typically resulted from war. It seems that slavery was part of a whole
way of life involving war and conquest that the best Christians always
considered as wrong.
But wouldn't this be like a present day situation where a missionary
goes into a village where men have several wives. Now after
conversion, does that missionary command those men that they have to
dismiss all but one wife? Now where is the gentleness in that. It
would mean that those women would be without housing or provision.
This would be very similar to the 1st C situation concerning slavery.
It would have completely disrupted the form of society to suddenly
dismiss all slaves. Also, it presumes, as with the wives, that they
want to be dismissed to begin with or that those slaves by and in
large suffer for their slavery. Slavery was very often like a
non-union shop where the harder you worked and the more inventive you
are, the more opportunities you have for advancement. After all,
wasn't Joseph and Daniel in reality, slaves to Pharaoh and old Neb?
I just think this whole line of argumentation is unsound to conclude
that ultraliteralism destroys literalism. I also think the original
detractor does not have a learned understanding of the literal
methodology.
If you could ask this man, do you think he would agree with you that
slavery was often like "non-union shop"?

http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/upload/thumb/1/17/200px-Slavetreatment.jpe

Get a clue.

George
George
2007-07-13 04:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy
Post by George
...
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer
for....
I figured as much.

George
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-13 04:20:09 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by George
Get a clue.
It is you, George, who needs to "get a clue". Charles made a valid point
concerning the differences between forms of slavery practiced by different
societies at different times, and it went completely over your head.

So no doubt the following even more important point will also go right over your
head: NONE of the forms of slavery so far discussed in this thread are as
harmful as the slavery to carnal-mindedness that you yourself inflict on
yourself.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-13 04:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy
Post by George
...
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer for....
Not at all. Rather, as I already pointed out (you should try reading more of the
thread before you butt in), I _did_ already answer the question -- but it is
_George_ who doesn't respond to things he doesn't like. He has _yet_ to even
show a _hint_ of understanding of my point: that societies banned slavery only
after societal/economic changes made it possible. For the most part, this did
not start happening until the early 19th century.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
l***@hotmail.com
2007-07-13 04:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
If you could ask this man, do you think he would agree with you that
slavery was often like "non-union shop"?
The point was that the social-economic culture of then should not be
judge by today culture. Slavery comes in manifold forms. Yet my
point was, one could make the best of it as a slave even as today
one can make the best of it in a bad work enviornment.

Also, Paul in 1 Cor said that if a slave could make himself free, then
do so. If not, then as in both cases, live as Christ did.
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-16 00:04:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <Y3Dli.41635$***@trnddc05>, George says...
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Andy
Post by George
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer
for....
I figured as much.
Then you figured wrong. Predictably so.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-16 00:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Get a clue.
It is you, George, who needs to "get a clue". Charles made a valid point
concerning the differences between forms of slavery practiced by
different
societies at different times, and it went completely over your head.
So no doubt the following even more important point will also go right
over your
head: NONE of the forms of slavery so far discussed in this thread are as
harmful as the slavery to carnal-mindedness that you yourself inflict on
yourself.
So, according to your logic, it is better to enslave a man than to allow
him to even conceive of "carnal-mindedness", whatever that is? Sounds like
a Christian version of the Taliban to me. Congratulations. Looks like Bin
Laden is winning more and more converts every day.

George
DKleinecke
2007-07-16 00:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The point was that the social-economic culture of then should not be
judge by today culture. Slavery comes in manifold forms.
The word "slave" is badly misused. Much of the time it is used
metaphorically. We need to be precise about what is that slavery we
now actively deplore.

The slavery that is now seen to have been a terrible moral error is
the slavery that makes a human being into property.

Nothing else should be accounted slavery. Serfs, for example, were not
slaves. I doubt if anyone today would find serfdom morally acceptable
even though it lasted in Russia as long as slavery in the United
States (and may still exist is some corners of the world).

The matter is considerably confused by the fact that the Semitic word
OBD for slave has always meant more than what I want to restrict the
English word "slave" to. In Islam, for example, any worshiper of God
would describe himself as an OBD of the deity (Abdullah means "slave
of God" and Allah has many other names). The semantics of Hebrew is
like that of Arabic. Obadiah, for example, could be said to be the
Hebrew for Abdullah.

The New Testament writers were close enough to their Hebrew roots to
use the Greek word for slave (which generally speaking had the same
meaning as in English) as though it were the Hebrew word.

The bottom line is that slavery - the idea that a human being could be
property - is now clearly seen as a moral evil. The question remains -
why did it take so long to become clear to us? And what other moral
evil might we be overlooking?

----

[I would maintain that while it can be uncertain for a while,
eventually the problem with slavery becomes clear to anyone who
understands basic Christian ethics. We can't treat someone as property
and also treat them as the NT tells us to. If that isn't obvious
initially, it becomes so after widespread experience. But institutions
and cultures change, so the decision can be different than it was in
previous centuries.

If there are other things like that one would hope that they would
become apparent in similar ways. --clh]
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-16 00:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
First of all, it was a stupid question. More important, I _did_
answer it, just a few lines further down.
Does the 1st amendment to the constitution support freedom of
religion and freedom of speech, or not?
You ask as if the question were relevant. The only -relevance- it
could have is that asking stupid questions is considered "protected
speech". It is, but that does not help you.
Post by George
It wasn't a stupid question.
It was and it still is. If you had asked instead, "does the 1st
Amendment support lying and decpetion as 'free speech'"? _that_ would
not have been a stupid question.

But of course, you did not ask that, since that would have pulled the
rug out from under yourself.
Post by George
Obviously, you are afraid to answer it, or else are unable to do so.
Obviously you say 'obviously' when it is not even true, far less
'obvious'. A cheap rhetorical device.

It is even worse than 'cheap', George, when you yourself have failed
to respond to the point I made, harping on a stupid question, while
you have yourself left your own homework undone.
Post by George
It's ok to say "I don't know".
Only when it is true. And not even always then.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
The _real_ historical fact, which YOU keep denying, is that it
was the change in society due to _economics_ that made the
abolition of slavery possible. Until then, all pre-industrial
societies had some form of slavery. Even Britain only abolished
slavery only after the _lost_ all their slave-holding colonies to
rebellions (such as the one we just celebrated this 4th of July).
And if your Jesus had simply proclaimed that slavery was wrong,
would that have stopped it sooner? Would it have had any effect?
I think it would have. So, if he was such a moral man, why did he
encourage it by telling slave owners how to punish their slaves?
Your question is illegitimate. You are presuming what is clearly
contrary to fact. He did _NOT_ encourage it. You are _still_
ignoring the historial facts.
[snip]
If Jesus tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment to
slaves, he is certainly not condemning it.
Big 'if'. There is no such passage in the canonical Gospels, nor in
citations of the words of Jesus in the canonical Epistles.
Post by George
The historic facts are the slavery was rampant during Biblical times.
No. Why, even by just applying the extremely biased word 'rampant',
you are showing a very _anti_historical attitude.

No statement so biased with such an anti-historical attitude can be
truly about "historic facts".
Post by George
The historic facts is that none of you holy men did anything to stop
the practice, and in fact, wrote laws that perpetuated it. Those are
the facts.
No, those are not "the facts" at all. Rather, the _facts_ are, as I
have _already_ pointed out to you, societies banned slavery only when
societal changes, in particular _economic_ and _technological_
changes, made it possible to ban it.

There is a _reason_ for this. Can you guess what it is? If you cannot
understand this, how will you understand the harder topic of how a law
can allow/regulate something w/o supporting it? Until then, how can
you understand that those laws are no black mark against the Church?

You cannot. THAT is the fact.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-16 00:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Andy
Post by George
...
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer
for....
Not at all. Rather, as I already pointed out (you should try reading
more of the thread before you butt in), I _did_ already answer the
question -- but it is _George_ who doesn't respond to things he
doesn't like. He has _yet_ to even show a _hint_ of understanding of
my point: that societies banned slavery only after societal/economic
changes made it possible. For the most part, this did not start
happening until the early 19th century.
And you've completely missed my point. If your God is so merciful and
loving of all mankind, why would he send his "only son to save us all" and
yet allow that "son" to encourage slavery and the punishment of slaves.
Are you saying that your all powerful, all knowing, everliving, Omnipotent
God didn't see and understand the immorality of slavery regardless of when
and where it occurred? Now I ask you, how incredulous is that?

The fact is that there is no God, and the rules are made up by the powerful
to subjugate the weak. End of story.

George
George
2007-07-16 00:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by George
If you could ask this man, do you think he would agree with you that
slavery was often like "non-union shop"?
The point was that the social-economic culture of then should not be
judge by today culture. Slavery comes in manifold forms. Yet my
point was, one could make the best of it as a slave even as today
one can make the best of it in a bad work enviornment.
Also, Paul in 1 Cor said that if a slave could make himself free, then
do so. If not, then as in both cases, live as Christ did.
The point is that regardless of the time or place, not everyone subscribes
to such immorality. Certainly religious leaders who are held up to such
high moral standards should never do so. And yet here we have in the
Bible, the very "king" of Christianity telling slave owners how to punish
their slaves. And I ask you, why should anyone worship someone/something
who would do that? No amount of apologizing for Christ can make up for the
fact that he encouraged slavery and the punishment of slaves.

George
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-17 02:23:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Andy
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer
for....
Not at all. Rather, as I already pointed out (you should try reading
more of the thread before you butt in), I _did_ already answer the
question -- but it is _George_ who doesn't respond to things he
doesn't like. He has _yet_ to even show a _hint_ of understanding of
my point: that societies banned slavery only after societal/economic
changes made it possible. For the most part, this did not start
happening until the early 19th century.
And you've completely missed my point.
No, I have not. It is you who has missed how pointless your entire
line of reasoning is.
Post by George
If your God is so merciful and loving of all mankind, why would he
send his "only son to save us all" and yet allow that "son" to
encourage slavery and the punishment of slaves.
I already answered that. Weren't you listening? To judge from your own
failure to make sense in your posts, I would have to say that no, you
were not listening. You still aren't.

Then again, the better question to ask would have been "If God is so
merciful and loving of all mankind, why does He allow such deceivers
as George to deceive by preaching atheism?"
Post by George
Are you saying that your all powerful, all knowing, everliving,
Omnipotent God didn't see and understand the immorality of slavery
regardless of when and where it occurred?
Of course not. That is one of the worst "straw-man" arguments I have
seen in this NG.

It is you who is incredulous, not me. You really should learn the
meaning of the word before you use it. Try looking it up in
http://dictionary.com.
Post by George
Now I ask you, how incredulous is that?
It isn't incredulous at all. Look the word up.
Post by George
The fact is that there is no God, and the rules are made up by the
powerful to subjugate the weak. End of story.
Ah, now here is the real problem. You have already made up your mind
what the answer is. That explains why you don't listen to the real
answers. Worse yet, you have clearly made up your mind to insist on
the wrong answers to TWO questions, then fallaciously link them
together.

Face it George, you have not made even the most elementary attempt to
understand theodicy, yet here you are insisting you have the only
right answers concerning theodicy and morality.

Now _that_ is incredulous -- and much worse. It is stubborn, ignorant
and irresponsible.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-17 02:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Andy
Post by George
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer
for....
I figured as much.
Then you figured wrong. Predictably so.
You still haven't answered my question, Matt.

George
George
2007-07-17 02:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
First of all, it was a stupid question. More important, I _did_
answer it, just a few lines further down.
Does the 1st amendment to the constitution support freedom of
religion and freedom of speech, or not?
You ask as if the question were relevant. The only -relevance- it
could have is that asking stupid questions is considered "protected
speech". It is, but that does not help you.
Post by George
It wasn't a stupid question.
It was and it still is. If you had asked instead, "does the 1st
Amendment support lying and decpetion as 'free speech'"? _that_ would
not have been a stupid question.
But of course, you did not ask that, since that would have pulled the
rug out from under yourself.
So you are telling us that you support putting lying, deceiving
creationists in jail? So do I, as it so happens. One down (Ken Hovind),
about a hundred or so to go). :-)
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Obviously, you are afraid to answer it, or else are unable to do so.
Obviously you say 'obviously' when it is not even true, far less
'obvious'. A cheap rhetorical device.
It is even worse than 'cheap', George, when you yourself have failed
to respond to the point I made, harping on a stupid question, while
you have yourself left your own homework undone.
I don't answer the questions of those who refuse to answer mine honestly.
Answer mine, and I will consider answering yours, IF I'm in the mood.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
It's ok to say "I don't know".
Only when it is true. And not even always then.
So, in your book, it is ok to be dishonest. Let me guess. You're a
Christian, right?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
The _real_ historical fact, which YOU keep denying, is that it
was the change in society due to _economics_ that made the
abolition of slavery possible. Until then, all pre-industrial
societies had some form of slavery. Even Britain only abolished
slavery only after the _lost_ all their slave-holding colonies to
rebellions (such as the one we just celebrated this 4th of July).
And if your Jesus had simply proclaimed that slavery was wrong,
would that have stopped it sooner? Would it have had any effect?
I think it would have. So, if he was such a moral man, why did he
encourage it by telling slave owners how to punish their slaves?
Your question is illegitimate. You are presuming what is clearly
contrary to fact. He did _NOT_ encourage it. You are _still_
ignoring the historial facts.
[snip]
Problems?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
If Jesus tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment to
slaves, he is certainly not condemning it.
Big 'if'. There is no such passage in the canonical Gospels, nor in
citations of the words of Jesus in the canonical Epistles.
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)

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)

Next.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
The historic facts are the slavery was rampant during Biblical times.
No. Why, even by just applying the extremely biased word 'rampant',
you are showing a very _anti_historical attitude.
No statement so biased with such an anti-historical attitude can be
truly about "historic facts".
Just because you believe in revisionism doesn't mean that I have to
subscribe to it. Slavery was widespread in Biblical times, and was widely
practiced in Jesus' time as well. That you refuse to believe it matters
not.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
The historic facts is that none of you holy men did anything to stop
the practice, and in fact, wrote laws that perpetuated it. Those are
the facts.
No, those are not "the facts" at all. Rather, the _facts_ are, as I
have _already_ pointed out to you, societies banned slavery only when
societal changes, in particular _economic_ and _technological_
changes, made it possible to ban it.
Point out one single passage from either the old testament or the new
testament where anyone condemned slavery and said it was immoral.

George
l***@hotmail.com
2007-07-17 02:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
The point is that regardless of the time or place, not everyone subscribes
to such immorality.
And if, as you say, there is no God, then everything that He give
meaning to also disolves. The problem is, you, nor anyone else, do
not live as if there is no God. You live as if there are absolutes.
You do not get on that airplane thinking that the laws of aerodynamics
might suddenly reverse themselves. No, you base your existence upon
the belief that there really are absolutes. But if there is no God,
then you cannot produce such a thing. It is quite absurd not only
philosophically be sociologically as well. Do away with God and there
is no reason for any such thing as law. In point of fact, personhood
is quite out of keeping with the impersonal universe. It's just this
very big impersonal machine. But this is not how anyone ever lives.
You live as if you have significance and illustrate that fact by
posting your opinions here. But in doing so, you speak out of both
sides of your mouth by saying one thing yet failing to actualize it.
Your philosophy is a square winged airplane that merely zooms down the
run way of life but never has a chance of becoming airborne unless it
hits a bump in the road and then it is forced to settle right back
down, never accomplishing its self interpreted intent.
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-17 02:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Get a clue.
[snip]
Post by George
So, according to your logic, it is better to enslave a man than to
allow him to even conceive of "carnal-mindedness", whatever that is?
Sounds like a Christian version of the Taliban to me.
To put it bluntly, after your colossal blunders, such as accusing
Constantine of "editing Scripture", who _cares_ "What it seems like to
you"?
Post by George
Congratulations. Looks like Bin Laden is winning more and more
converts every day.
This is another of your colossal blunders. What I say is nothing like
what Bin Laden says. You would know the difference if you had realized
that Epictetus was a slave, but through his philosophy was freer than
you are.

As it was with Epictetus, so it can be with all Christians. But you
only think you are free, when in fact yours is the darkest slavery.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-18 03:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Andy
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
And how does a law (biblical or otherwise) regulate something
without
supporting it?
Laws do this all the time. Why are you acting so surprised?
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer
for....
Not at all. Rather, as I already pointed out (you should try reading
more of the thread before you butt in), I _did_ already answer the
question -- but it is _George_ who doesn't respond to things he
doesn't like. He has _yet_ to even show a _hint_ of understanding of
my point: that societies banned slavery only after societal/economic
changes made it possible. For the most part, this did not start
happening until the early 19th century.
And you've completely missed my point.
No, I have not. It is you who has missed how pointless your entire
line of reasoning is.
Post by George
If your God is so merciful and loving of all mankind, why would he
send his "only son to save us all" and yet allow that "son" to
encourage slavery and the punishment of slaves.
I already answered that.
No you haven't. Yes, I was reading (I can hardly "listen" in a usenet test
forum).
Post by Matthew Johnson
Weren't you listening? To judge from your own
failure to make sense in your posts, I would have to say that no, you
were not listening. You still aren't.
And your ad hominem here doesn't support your argument.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Then again, the better question to ask would have been "If God is so
merciful and loving of all mankind, why does He allow such deceivers
as George to deceive by preaching atheism?"
Then again, you still have not answered my question, above. Perhaps if I
repost it, an answer might come to you.

"If your God is so merciful and loving of all mankind, why would he send
his "only son to save us all" and yet allow that "son" to encourage slavery
and the punishment of slaves?"
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Are you saying that your all powerful, all knowing, everliving,
Omnipotent God didn't see and understand the immorality of slavery
regardless of when and where it occurred?
Of course not. That is one of the worst "straw-man" arguments I have
seen in this NG.
So you are saying that he DID see and understand the immorality of slavery,
and still did nothing? Shame on him. And shame on you for worshipping
such an immoral imaginary thing.

George
George
2007-07-18 03:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Get a clue.
[snip]
Post by George
So, according to your logic, it is better to enslave a man than to
allow him to even conceive of "carnal-mindedness", whatever that is?
Sounds like a Christian version of the Taliban to me.
To put it bluntly, after your colossal blunders, such as accusing
Constantine of "editing Scripture", who _cares_ "What it seems like to
you"?
Post by George
Congratulations. Looks like Bin Laden is winning more and more
converts every day.
This is another of your colossal blunders. What I say is nothing like
what Bin Laden says. You would know the difference if you had realized
that Epictetus was a slave, but through his philosophy was freer than
you are.
Who knows what you actually say, because you obfuscate around any question
posed to you. So I'm left making assumptions based on what you actually do
say, which is precious little of merit.

George
George
2007-07-18 03:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by George
The point is that regardless of the time or place, not everyone
subscribes
to such immorality.
And if, as you say, there is no God, then everything that He give
meaning to also disolves. The problem is, you, nor anyone else, do
not live as if there is no God.
Certainly, you don't know what you are talking about. I not only do not
believe in a God, I do NOT live as if there is a God. That you find that
concept unfathonable is your problem, not mine.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You live as if there are absolutes.
Projecting your own failings on others is pretty lame, lsender. Ther are
no absolutes. Not even in physics. There are certainly what I refer to as
"closest approximations". 99.9999% is not 1.0, but it's good enough for
Army work and nuclear reactors.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You do not get on that airplane thinking that the laws of aerodynamics
might suddenly reverse themselves. No, you base your existence upon
the belief that there really are absolutes.
You are confused, and certainly don't know me well enough to make such an
extraordinary claim. As I said above, there are no absolutes.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But if there is no God,
then you cannot produce such a thing.
??? What, exactly, can I not produce without a God? Since there is no
evidence that God even exists, I can rather easily argue that there is
nothing that can be produced WITH god (except, perhaps, human misery and
the destruction of much of the planet)). Science leaves god out of the
equation for a very simple reason. If we resort to explaining away
everything as "God did it", that automatically excludes all other
explanations, and in fact, leaves us with no explanation at all. That's
how science works. You have to account for and test for all variables. If
we explain everything as "God did it", i.e., God blew out the bunsen
burner, and not the wind when someone slammed the laboratory door, then
what have we discovered about the nature of the flame going out? Nothing
at all.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is quite absurd not only
philosophically be sociologically as well. Do away with God and there
is no reason for any such thing as law.
Laws are created by civilizations, for the people in those civilizations.
Without laws, civilization cannot function. The law came together as soon
as two people decided to live together. Someone had to decide how to
ration the food, the division of labor, and property rights, etc. That
didn't come from a magical burning bush. It came from people deciding what
is what, who gets what, and who doesn't. Neither law nor morality is the
exclusive domain of religion. In fact, as far as I'm concern, it should
NEVER be a part of the domain of religion. Both are part and partial to
the human condition. End of story.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
In point of fact, personhood
is quite out of keeping with the impersonal universe. It's just this
very big impersonal machine. But this is not how anyone ever lives.
You live as if you have significance and illustrate that fact by
posting your opinions here. But in doing so, you speak out of both
sides of your mouth by saying one thing yet failing to actualize it.
Your philosophy is a square winged airplane that merely zooms down the
run way of life but never has a chance of becoming airborne unless it
hits a bump in the road and then it is forced to settle right back
down, never accomplishing its self interpreted intent.
Einstein once said "A human being is part of a whole, called by us the
Universe, a part limited in time, space, and personal consciousness. He
experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from
the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is
a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to
affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves
from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all
living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. No one can acheive
this completely, but the striving for such acheivement is a part of the
liberation and a foundation for inner security."

George
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-18 03:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Andy
Post by George
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer
for....
I figured as much.
Then you figured wrong. Predictably so.
You still haven't answered my question, Matt.
Not true. For I really did answer it already, as I already pointed out more than
once. I answered it by observing that it was IMPOSSIBLE for early societies to
ban it.

It is irrational, George, for you to insist that it is immoral, when it was
impossible for them to ban.

If that really basic principle of really basic ethics is too hard for you to
understand, then no wonder you cannot understand ethics,hostory, or theodicy.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-19 01:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Andy
Post by George
You didn't answer my question.
Matthew doesn't answer questions he doesn't like...or has no answer
for....
I figured as much.
Then you figured wrong. Predictably so.
You still haven't answered my question, Matt.
Not true. For I really did answer it already, as I already pointed out
more than
once. I answered it by observing that it was IMPOSSIBLE for early
societies to
ban it.
So you are saying that your God is not omnipotent after all? Well, Matt,
you could have saved yourself the trouble and asked me. I would have
confirmed it for you.

George
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-19 01:46:12 UTC
Permalink
In article <nYfni.6056$***@trnddc06>, George says...
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
So, according to your logic, it is better to enslave a man than to
allow him to even conceive of "carnal-mindedness", whatever that is?
Sounds like a Christian version of the Taliban to me.
To put it bluntly, after your colossal blunders, such as accusing
Constantine of "editing Scripture", who _cares_ "What it seems like to
you"?
Post by George
Congratulations. Looks like Bin Laden is winning more and more
converts every day.
This is another of your colossal blunders. What I say is nothing like
what Bin Laden says. You would know the difference if you had realized
that Epictetus was a slave, but through his philosophy was freer than
you are.
Who knows what you actually say, because you obfuscate around any question
posed to you.
Not true. I answered your question. It is you who is doing the 'obfuscation' to
try to make it look like I did not.
Post by George
So I'm left making assumptions based on what you actually do
say,
But you haven't _done_ this yet. What you have done instead is show how bad your
reading skills are.
Post by George
which is precious little of merit.
And what do you expect, when I am forced to spend so much time demonstrating how
poor your reading skills are?

Start actually replying to what was said, instead of obfuscating.
Post by George
George
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-19 01:46:12 UTC
Permalink
In article <nYfni.6055$***@trnddc06>, George says...
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course not. That is one of the worst "straw-man" arguments I have
seen in this NG.
So you are saying that he DID see and understand the immorality of slavery,
and still did nothing? Shame on him. And shame on you for worshipping
such an immoral imaginary thing.
This response of yours, is a perfect example of your own dishonesty. For there
is NOTHING of that sort in what I said. So either you are lying, when you say
you know how to read, or you are lying when you say you read what I wrote and
drew this conclusion from it.

Either way, your dishonesty shows up loud and clear.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-19 01:46:13 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you did not ask that, since that would have pulled the
rug out from under yourself.
So you are telling us that you support putting lying, deceiving
creationists in jail? So do I, as it so happens. One down (Ken
Hovind), about a hundred or so to go). :-)
Of course, I consider it a much higher priority to put lying,
deceiving atheists in jail;) And I even support outsourcing their
imprisonment to Russia where they can find out what punishment they
_really_ deserve;)
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Obviously, you are afraid to answer it, or else are unable to do so.
Obviously you say 'obviously' when it is not even true, far less
'obvious'. A cheap rhetorical device.
It is even worse than 'cheap', George, when you yourself have failed
to respond to the point I made, harping on a stupid question, while
you have yourself left your own homework undone.
I don't answer the questions of those who refuse to answer mine honestly.
But you are yourself being dishonest when you make this claim. For I
did answer it already, as I already pointed out more than once. So you
are in no position to complain about another's alleged 'dishonesty'.

And yes, you are really being dishonest. For I have already explained
to you, and explained it honestly, why you have to answer mine before
you can understand the answer to yours. Yet here you are stamping your
foot.
Post by George
Answer mine, and I will consider answering yours, IF I'm in the mood.
That is not good enough, George. You have already shown that you are
never in the mood for honest discussion.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
It's ok to say "I don't know".
Only when it is true. And not even always then.
So, in your book, it is ok to be dishonest. Let me guess. You're a
Christian, right?
This is a perfect example of your dishonesty.

[snip[
Post by George
Problems?
Why, yes. But which problems are _you_ referring to?
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
If Jesus tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment to
slaves, he is certainly not condemning it.
Big 'if'. There is no such passage in the canonical Gospels, nor in
citations of the words of Jesus in the canonical Epistles.
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)
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)
I thought you might respond with such passages. But predictably, you
have missed the point. What is particularly silly, George, is that the
point you missed was your own!

You claimed that there are passages that describe Jesus as "telling
tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment".

But not ONE of the passages does any such thing! The first two say
NOTHING about how the _master_ should behave, and the last is a
PARABLE. As such, it says NOTHING about how the master _should_
behave, only that the master _will_ beat the servant who refused his
duty.
Post by George
Next.
No, you aren't finished with the first yet. You misread ALL THREE
passages, making elementary reading mistakes even a brigh freshman
knows to avoid.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
The historic facts are the slavery was rampant during Biblical times.
No. Why, even by just applying the extremely biased word 'rampant',
you are showing a very _anti_historical attitude.
No statement so biased with such an anti-historical attitude can be
truly about "historic facts".
Just because you believe in revisionism doesn't mean that I have to
subscribe to it.
It is not 'revionism'. Do you even know what this word really means,
George? Or are you displaying your ignorance again, just like you did
when you misused the word 'incredulous'?

Now your attempt to use the above passages to claim that Christ gave
instructions to slave-masters how to punish slaves, THAT is
'revionism'.
Post by George
Slavery was widespread in Biblical times, and was widely
practiced in Jesus' time as well. That you refuse to believe it matters
not.
Learn to read, George. I never denied it was widespread. I denied that
that widespreadness is equivalent to being RAMPANT.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
The historic facts is that none of you holy men did anything to stop
the practice, and in fact, wrote laws that perpetuated it. Those are
the facts.
No, those are not "the facts" at all. Rather, the _facts_ are, as I
have _already_ pointed out to you, societies banned slavery only when
societal changes, in particular _economic_ and _technological_
changes, made it possible to ban it.
Point out one single passage from either the old testament or the new
testament where anyone condemned slavery and said it was immoral.
You still don't get the point, do you? Scripture cannot condemn as
'immoral' a practice no society _could_ ban until centuries later. So
there is no need for such a passage, there is even no room for such a
passage.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-20 03:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course not. That is one of the worst "straw-man" arguments I have
seen in this NG.
So you are saying that he DID see and understand the immorality of
slavery,
and still did nothing? Shame on him. And shame on you for worshipping
such an immoral imaginary thing.
This response of yours, is a perfect example of your own dishonesty.
For there is NOTHING of that sort in what I said. So either you are
lying, when you say you know how to read, or you are lying when you
say you read what I wrote and drew this conclusion from it.
Either way, your dishonesty shows up loud and clear.
Matt. Is your God omnipotent or is your God not omnipotent? Which is it?

Heprge
George
2007-07-20 03:29:29 UTC
Permalink
"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message news:Enzni.6337$***@trnddc03...
...
Post by Matthew Johnson
And what do you expect, when I am forced to spend so much time
demonstrating how
poor your reading skills are?
So you post precious little of merit in order to demonstrate my poor
reading skills? How does that work, Matt?

George

----

[This discussion is over. --clh]
George
2007-07-20 03:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you did not ask that, since that would have pulled the
rug out from under yourself.
So you are telling us that you support putting lying, deceiving
creationists in jail? So do I, as it so happens. One down (Ken
Hovind), about a hundred or so to go). :-)
Of course, I consider it a much higher priority to put lying,
deceiving atheists in jail;) And I even support outsourcing their
imprisonment to Russia where they can find out what punishment they
_really_ deserve;)
Oh I see. So you are not only in denial that your God is not omnipotent,
but you are a bigot as well. Well, I'm not surprised in the least. No
doubt, you and Ted Haggert are also great friends. As the saying goes,
with friends like you, who needs enemas.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Obviously, you are afraid to answer it, or else are unable to do so.
Obviously you say 'obviously' when it is not even true, far less
'obvious'. A cheap rhetorical device.
It is even worse than 'cheap', George, when you yourself have failed
to respond to the point I made, harping on a stupid question, while
you have yourself left your own homework undone.
I don't answer the questions of those who refuse to answer mine honestly.
But you are yourself being dishonest when you make this claim. For I
did answer it already, as I already pointed out more than once. So you
are in no position to complain about another's alleged 'dishonesty'.
Yes I am. You didn't answer the question, Matt. Put up or shut up.
Post by Matthew Johnson
And yes, you are really being dishonest. For I have already explained
to you, and explained it honestly, why you have to answer mine before
you can understand the answer to yours. Yet here you are stamping your
foot.
Here you are repeating yourself.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Answer mine, and I will consider answering yours, IF I'm in the mood.
That is not good enough, George.
Tough. Take it or get off the pot.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
It's ok to say "I don't know".
Only when it is true. And not even always then.
So, in your book, it is ok to be dishonest. Let me guess. You're a
Christian, right?
This is a perfect example of your dishonesty.
How many honest Christians do you know, Matt?
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip[
Post by George
Problems?
Why, yes. But which problems are _you_ referring to?
Why did you snip what I wrote?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
If Jesus tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment to
slaves, he is certainly not condemning it.
Big 'if'. There is no such passage in the canonical Gospels, nor in
citations of the words of Jesus in the canonical Epistles.
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)
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)
I thought you might respond with such passages. But predictably, you
have missed the point. What is particularly silly, George, is that the
point you missed was your own!
You claimed that there are passages that describe Jesus as "telling
tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment".
Try reading Luke 12:47-48 again, Matt. If after re-reading it you still
believe that He is not telling slave owners how to treat their slaves, then
you are being dishonest.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
The historic facts are the slavery was rampant during Biblical times.
No. Why, even by just applying the extremely biased word 'rampant',
you are showing a very _anti_historical attitude.
No statement so biased with such an anti-historical attitude can be
truly about "historic facts".
Just because you believe in revisionism doesn't mean that I have to
subscribe to it.
It is not 'revionism'. Do you even know what this word really means,
George? Or are you displaying your ignorance again, just like you did
when you misused the word 'incredulous'?
Now your attempt to use the above passages to claim that Christ gave
instructions to slave-masters how to punish slaves, THAT is
'revionism'.
Post by George
Slavery was widespread in Biblical times, and was widely
practiced in Jesus' time as well. That you refuse to believe it matters
not.
Learn to read, George. I never denied it was widespread. I denied that
that widespreadness is equivalent to being RAMPANT.
Every major civilization in ancient times up to the 19th century had slaves
(even Amerindians had them). I'd say that fact qualifies it as being
rampant in the ancient to recent past. Sadly, Christians claim a merciful
god while worshipping an alleged God/man who encouraged something that is,
by any standard of decency, anything but merciful.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
The historic facts is that none of you holy men did anything to stop
the practice, and in fact, wrote laws that perpetuated it. Those are
the facts.
No, those are not "the facts" at all. Rather, the _facts_ are, as I
have _already_ pointed out to you, societies banned slavery only when
societal changes, in particular _economic_ and _technological_
changes, made it possible to ban it.
Point out one single passage from either the old testament or the new
testament where anyone condemned slavery and said it was immoral.
You still don't get the point, do you? Scripture cannot condemn as
'immoral' a practice no society _could_ ban until centuries later. So
there is no need for such a passage, there is even no room for such a
passage.
Do explain why it could not have been banned. If Jesus was God, he can do
anything. Right? He walked on water (a violation of the laws of physics,
by the way), yet he can't command his followers to stop practicing and
encouraging slavery, which is clearly an immoral practice? Your argument
has no credibility, Matt.

And since he can do anything, the fact that he didn't even try to stop
slavery indicates that

1) Your God is an immoral one, or
2) He's a made up one, AND an immoral one.

I vote for 2.

George
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-22 23:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course not. That is one of the worst "straw-man" arguments I have
seen in this NG.
So you are saying that he DID see and understand the immorality of
slavery, and still did nothing? Shame on him. And shame on you
for worshipping such an immoral imaginary thing.
This response of yours, is a perfect example of your own
dishonesty. For there is NOTHING of that sort in what I said. So
either you are lying, when you say you know how to read, or you are
lying when you say you read what I wrote and drew this conclusion
from it.
Either way, your dishonesty shows up loud and clear.
Matt. Is your God omnipotent or is your God not omnipotent? Which is it?
Even omnipotence does not achieve contradiction. Think about it for a
change before you reply.
Post by George
Heprge
And type your own name right!
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-22 23:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you did not ask that, since that would have pulled the
rug out from under yourself.
So you are telling us that you support putting lying, deceiving
creationists in jail? So do I, as it so happens. One down (Ken
Hovind), about a hundred or so to go). :-)
Of course, I consider it a much higher priority to put lying,
deceiving atheists in jail;) And I even support outsourcing their
imprisonment to Russia where they can find out what punishment they
_really_ deserve;)
Oh I see. So you are not only in denial that your God is not omnipotent,
but you are a bigot as well.
Then no, you do not 'see'. For none of these conclusions are justifiable.
Post by George
Well, I'm not surprised in the least. No doubt, you and Ted Haggert
are also great friends.
Speculative ad hominem gets you nowhere.
Post by George
As the saying goes, with friends like you, who needs enemas.
You can't even get the saying right!

[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
But you are yourself being dishonest when you make this claim. For
I did answer it already, as I already pointed out more than
once. So you are in no position to complain about another's alleged
'dishonesty'.
Yes I am.
No, you are not.
Post by George
You didn't answer the question, Matt.
Liar. I did too answer it. Even more than once now. You are just to
thick to recognize the answer.
Post by George
Put up or shut up.
It is you who has to "put up or shut up". But you will not, because
you are such a habitual liar.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
And yes, you are really being dishonest. For I have already
explained to you, and explained it honestly, why you have to answer
mine before you can understand the answer to yours. Yet here you
are stamping your foot.
Here you are repeating yourself.
Well, you didn't get it the first time.

[snip]
Post by George
How many honest Christians do you know, Matt?
Lots.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Problems?
Why, yes. But which problems are _you_ referring to?
Why did you snip what I wrote?
Because NONE of it was relevant, nor worth repeating.

[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
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)
I thought you might respond with such passages. But predictably, you
have missed the point. What is particularly silly, George, is that the
point you missed was your own!
You claimed that there are passages that describe Jesus as "telling
tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment".
Try reading Luke 12:47-48 again, Matt.
I don't need to. You do, since you are still spewing nonsense about
it.
Post by George
If after re-reading it you still believe that He is not telling slave
owners how to treat their slaves, then you are being dishonest.
Not so. It is you who is either being dishonest or showing off your
incompetence at basic reading skills. There is NOTHING in Lk 12:47-48
about what slave owners _should_ do. It is a PARABLE. Don't you know
what a parable is?

[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Learn to read, George. I never denied it was widespread. I denied
that that widespreadness is equivalent to being RAMPANT.
Every major civilization in ancient times up to the 19th century had slaves
(even Amerindians had them).
Finally, you admit this obvious fact. Now if only you would admit the
equally obvious consequences.
Post by George
I'd say that fact qualifies it as being rampant in the ancient to
recent past.
And I say it does not. My word carries more than yours because I
actually know the difference between 'widespread' and 'rampant'. You do
not. Try using a dictionary for once. If you would finally do this,
you would see that the difference between 'rampant' and 'widespread'
is very significant here.
Post by George
Sadly, Christians claim a merciful god while worshipping an alleged
God/man who encouraged something that is, by any standard of decency,
anything but merciful.
You have already shown how poorly you understand "standards of
decency" by your very indecent behavior in this thread. You show an
even poorer understanding of mercy. So yet again, you are in no
position to make these proclamations. But that hasn't stopped you yet,
has it?

[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
You still don't get the point, do you? Scripture cannot condemn as
'immoral' a practice no society _could_ ban until centuries
later. So there is no need for such a passage, there is even no
room for such a passage.
Do explain why it could not have been banned.
I just did. You snipped it w/o comment, remember?
Post by George
If Jesus was God, he can do anything. Right?
Wrong. As even Aquinas explained so well, even omnipotence does not
achieve contradiction. What you propose would entail a
contradiction. If you had been listening instead of bleating your own
one idea over and over, you would have noticed this by now.
Post by George
He walked on water (a violation of the laws of physics, by the way),
yet he can't command his followers to stop practicing and encouraging
slavery, which is clearly an immoral practice? Your argument has no
credibility, Matt.
Then why are you wasting the readers' time with this straw-man
argument? I _never_ said any of this. Nor did I imply it. What I said
implied that it was NOT "an immoral practice". If you ever read the
Nichomachean Ethics or the Politics of Aristotle, this would be easy
to explain(http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-pol.htm#SH7d). But since you
show off your own inability to read on far simpler texts, it would be
in futile for me to try to explain it to you now as things are.
Post by George
And since he can do anything, the fact that he didn't even try to
stop slavery indicates that
It indicates no such thing.
Post by George
1) Your God is an immoral one, or
2) He's a made up one, AND an immoral one.
I vote for 2.
But this vote is SO irrational, it shows how your entire attitude
towards questions about God is dictated by irrational hatred. This
irrational hatred starts out directed at God (ironic, since you claim
not to believe He exists), but ends up directed at Man. This is
inevitable, since Man is made in God's image.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-23 00:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course not. That is one of the worst "straw-man" arguments I have
seen in this NG.
So you are saying that he DID see and understand the immorality of
slavery, and still did nothing? Shame on him. And shame on you
for worshipping such an immoral imaginary thing.
This response of yours, is a perfect example of your own
dishonesty. For there is NOTHING of that sort in what I said. So
either you are lying, when you say you know how to read, or you are
lying when you say you read what I wrote and drew this conclusion
from it.
Either way, your dishonesty shows up loud and clear.
Matt. Is your God omnipotent or is your God not omnipotent? Which is it?
Even omnipotence does not achieve contradiction. Think about it for a
change before you reply.
Post by George
Heprge
And type your own name right!
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2007-07-23 00:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, you did not ask that, since that would have pulled the
rug out from under yourself.
So you are telling us that you support putting lying, deceiving
creationists in jail? So do I, as it so happens. One down (Ken
Hovind), about a hundred or so to go). :-)
Of course, I consider it a much higher priority to put lying,
deceiving atheists in jail;) And I even support outsourcing their
imprisonment to Russia where they can find out what punishment they
_really_ deserve;)
Oh I see. So you are not only in denial that your God is not omnipotent,
but you are a bigot as well.
Then no, you do not 'see'. For none of these conclusions are justifiable.
Post by George
Well, I'm not surprised in the least. No doubt, you and Ted Haggert
are also great friends.
Speculative ad hominem gets you nowhere.
Post by George
As the saying goes, with friends like you, who needs enemas.
You can't even get the saying right!

[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
But you are yourself being dishonest when you make this claim. For
I did answer it already, as I already pointed out more than
once. So you are in no position to complain about another's alleged
'dishonesty'.
Yes I am.
No, you are not.
Post by George
You didn't answer the question, Matt.
Liar. I did too answer it. Even more than once now. You are just to
thick to recognize the answer.
Post by George
Put up or shut up.
It is you who has to "put up or shut up". But you will not, because
you are such a habitual liar.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
And yes, you are really being dishonest. For I have already
explained to you, and explained it honestly, why you have to answer
mine before you can understand the answer to yours. Yet here you
are stamping your foot.
Here you are repeating yourself.
Well, you didn't get it the first time.

[snip]
Post by George
How many honest Christians do you know, Matt?
Lots.
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Problems?
Why, yes. But which problems are _you_ referring to?
Why did you snip what I wrote?
Because NONE of it was relevant, nor worth repeating.

[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
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)
I thought you might respond with such passages. But predictably, you
have missed the point. What is particularly silly, George, is that the
point you missed was your own!
You claimed that there are passages that describe Jesus as "telling
tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment".
Try reading Luke 12:47-48 again, Matt.
I don't need to. You do, since you are still spewing nonsense about
it.
Post by George
If after re-reading it you still believe that He is not telling slave
owners how to treat their slaves, then you are being dishonest.
Not so. It is you who is either being dishonest or showing off your
incompetence at basic reading skills. There is NOTHING in Lk 12:47-48
about what slave owners _should_ do. It is a PARABLE. Don't you know
what a parable is?

[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Learn to read, George. I never denied it was widespread. I denied
that that widespreadness is equivalent to being RAMPANT.
Every major civilization in ancient times up to the 19th century had slaves
(even Amerindians had them).
Finally, you admit this obvious fact. Now if only you would admit the
equally obvious consequences.
Post by George
I'd say that fact qualifies it as being rampant in the ancient to
recent past.
And I say it does not. My word carries more than yours because I
actually know the difference between 'widespread' and 'rampant'. You do
not. Try using a dictionary for once. If you would finally do this,
you would see that the difference between 'rampant' and 'widespread'
is very significant here.
Post by George
Sadly, Christians claim a merciful god while worshipping an alleged
God/man who encouraged something that is, by any standard of decency,
anything but merciful.
You have already shown how poorly you understand "standards of
decency" by your very indecent behavior in this thread. You show an
even poorer understanding of mercy. So yet again, you are in no
position to make these proclamations. But that hasn't stopped you yet,
has it?

[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
You still don't get the point, do you? Scripture cannot condemn as
'immoral' a practice no society _could_ ban until centuries
later. So there is no need for such a passage, there is even no
room for such a passage.
Do explain why it could not have been banned.
I just did. You snipped it w/o comment, remember?
Post by George
If Jesus was God, he can do anything. Right?
Wrong. As even Aquinas explained so well, even omnipotence does not
achieve contradiction. What you propose would entail a
contradiction. If you had been listening instead of bleating your own
one idea over and over, you would have noticed this by now.
Post by George
He walked on water (a violation of the laws of physics, by the way),
yet he can't command his followers to stop practicing and encouraging
slavery, which is clearly an immoral practice? Your argument has no
credibility, Matt.
Then why are you wasting the readers' time with this straw-man
argument? I _never_ said any of this. Nor did I imply it. What I said
implied that it was NOT "an immoral practice". If you ever read the
Nichomachean Ethics or the Politics of Aristotle, this would be easy
to explain(http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-pol.htm#SH7d). But since you
show off your own inability to read on far simpler texts, it would be
in futile for me to try to explain it to you now as things are.
Post by George
And since he can do anything, the fact that he didn't even try to
stop slavery indicates that
It indicates no such thing.
Post by George
1) Your God is an immoral one, or
2) He's a made up one, AND an immoral one.
I vote for 2.
But this vote is SO irrational, it shows how your entire attitude
towards questions about God is dictated by irrational hatred. This
irrational hatred starts out directed at God (ironic, since you claim
not to believe He exists), but ends up directed at Man. This is
inevitable, since Man is made in God's image.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
George
2007-07-23 23:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course not. That is one of the worst "straw-man" arguments I have
seen in this NG.
So you are saying that he DID see and understand the immorality of
slavery, and still did nothing? Shame on him. And shame on you
for worshipping such an immoral imaginary thing.
This response of yours, is a perfect example of your own
dishonesty. For there is NOTHING of that sort in what I said. So
either you are lying, when you say you know how to read, or you are
lying when you say you read what I wrote and drew this conclusion
from it.
Either way, your dishonesty shows up loud and clear.
Matt. Is your God omnipotent or is your God not omnipotent? Which is
it?
Even omnipotence does not achieve contradiction. Think about it for a
change before you reply.
So you are saying that perpetual motion machines are possible? Explain the
physics, will you?

George
George
2007-07-23 23:45:52 UTC
Permalink
"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message news:GvRoi.1141$***@trnddc06...

<snip>
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by George
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)
I thought you might respond with such passages. But predictably, you
have missed the point. What is particularly silly, George, is that the
point you missed was your own!
You claimed that there are passages that describe Jesus as "telling
tells slave owners how they are to dole out punishment".
Try reading Luke 12:47-48 again, Matt.
I don't need to. You do, since you are still spewing nonsense about
it.
Post by George
If after re-reading it you still believe that He is not telling slave
owners how to treat their slaves, then you are being dishonest.
Not so. It is you who is either being dishonest or showing off your
incompetence at basic reading skills. There is NOTHING in Lk 12:47-48
about what slave owners _should_ do. It is a PARABLE. Don't you know
what a parable is?
So, Jesus telling slave owners how to punish their slaves is a parable, but
the Genesis story of creation is scientific fact? Thanks for proving my
thesis in this thread that literalists pick and choose what is literally
true in the bible and what is not based on their own myopic world view. It
also supports my thesis that being saved requires one to abandon any sense
of irony.

Bye now.

<snip>

George

---

[Jesus is saying that those who have religious knowledge and/or
authority will be judged more rigorously. One can imagine Jesus using
this parable directed against religious leaders of the time. However
in its current context it seems to be a warning to the disciples.
Jesus has previously (12:35-40) told a parable about being ready for
his coming. Peter asks whether that it directed at everyone or the
disciples. Jesus responds with 12:41-48 saying that those who know
their duty will be judged more rigorously than those who do not. The
obvious reading is that Jesus is telling Peter that the duty to be
ready described in 35-40 is more serious for the disciples, because
they know more of his will.

In case you missed the point, 12:48 first summarizes the parable, i.e.
it talks about how slaves will be treated, and then gives the
interpretation of the parable. To say that Jesus is telling people how
to punish slaves is to laughable. Jesus' parables often use common
events to make a point about spiritual matters. Not all of the events
he uses are things he approves of (e.g. Luke 16:1-9, where it is
highly unlikely that he is recommending that managers should
misappropriate their master's resources).

It's worth noting that Jesus follows Jewish tradition in often using
passive constructs to avoid mentioning God's name. Hence the 2nd half
of 12:48 should be read as "From everyone to whom God has given much,
he will require much..."

--clh]

Loading...