Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
114 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Thou shalt not enslave your fellow human beings." ~ Absolutelyfuckingnowhere 3:16 (Original Post) cynatnite May 2012 OP
Mark 12:31 rug May 2012 #1
Mark 12:31? eqfan592 May 2012 #3
Which requires one to acknowledge a slave as one's neighbor. trotsky May 2012 #6
It doesn't mention slavery at all. rug May 2012 #7
That verse is even more friendly to the pro-slavery position. trotsky May 2012 #10
Here's the passage. rug May 2012 #31
My "clear implication" is that there is no clear interpretation. trotsky May 2012 #34
I'm not sure that he discusses slavery at all but here's the answer to your second question. rug May 2012 #35
Oh in typical biblical fashion, there's still plenty of wiggle room. trotsky May 2012 #39
"But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'” rug May 2012 #40
Why do you accuse me of having that view? That is rude, not necessary, trotsky May 2012 #41
Sorry. rug May 2012 #42
Actually, the contrast is between your interpretation of the parable and his. eqfan592 May 2012 #44
Could be, of course, LTX May 2012 #2
Sorry, not to be an asshole, but that's a pretty weak excuse... eqfan592 May 2012 #4
Considering that slavery was a normal accepted part of virtually all societies humblebum May 2012 #5
Wow, coming out with both barrels of "fail" firing today, aren't we, humblebum? eqfan592 May 2012 #12
So now you assuming to speak for a god in which you do not believe? Your humblebum May 2012 #14
My argument is a part of why I became an atheist in the first place. eqfan592 May 2012 #19
And I will still challenge your assumptions when you introduce such jaded arguments as this. humblebum May 2012 #20
Then we clearly have nothing further to discuss. (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #22
Thanks for my laugh this morning Goblinmonger May 2012 #25
lol, you're welcome! eqfan592 May 2012 #26
I think that you already know that your so-called argument is humblebum May 2012 #29
There are a few words you are misuing, humblebum. cleanhippie May 2012 #32
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #36
Nice personal attack. cleanhippie May 2012 #37
And how was that a personal attack? More like a response humblebum May 2012 #38
You resorted to childish namecalling. cleanhippie May 2012 #45
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #57
Depends on whether you view LTX May 2012 #15
This is very true. eqfan592 May 2012 #21
I think the LTX May 2012 #27
Good post there. Thanks. (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #43
But they were written after the invention of slavery. trotsky May 2012 #9
So what year was slavery invented? nt humblebum May 2012 #11
Prior to 1st Century CE, which is all that matters. dmallind May 2012 #16
Who holds the patent? nt humblebum May 2012 #18
Those hadn't been invented yet. eqfan592 May 2012 #23
What was the prototype? nt humblebum May 2012 #28
Sorry, rounds are over skepticscott May 2012 #30
nevermind. Warren Stupidity May 2012 #74
I suppose there's an entire book of the Bible (Exodus) devoted to freeing Hebrew Slaves... OneTenthofOnePercent May 2012 #8
Yeah, but they were the lead protagonists. eqfan592 May 2012 #13
And slaves who weren't Hebrews? dmallind May 2012 #17
None of which turns out to be true. daaron May 2012 #24
Just another chapter of fiction, as there is no record of jews ever being enslaved in Egypt. cleanhippie May 2012 #33
Who didn't take very long to become slave-masters themselves. backscatter712 May 2012 #58
OT clearly permits slavery. Warren Stupidity May 2012 #75
Gotta love the Ten Commandments. backscatter712 May 2012 #46
Well the obvious response to that... eqfan592 May 2012 #47
Gotta wonder what the other five were... backscatter712 May 2012 #59
It would have contradicted the tenth one. laconicsax May 2012 #48
Not just the Ten Commandments skepticscott May 2012 #50
Wow, could the Christians in this thread be any more defensive and dishonest? Humanist_Activist May 2012 #49
Well, yes they could skepticscott May 2012 #51
If you are referring to the thread I started, only one religious person said no unequivocally... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #52
What will you kill for , what will you die for? Leontius May 2012 #53
I will kill to protect myself or others from imminent bodily harm... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #54
So you value PEOPLE over yourself ? Leontius May 2012 #60
He said he would die to protect other people. eqfan592 May 2012 #61
Should have been "So" in the heading Leontius May 2012 #63
I would say yes to the first question... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #64
Are you saying that as Christians we sin as much and as often Leontius May 2012 #78
As I recall skepticscott May 2012 #55
Yes, that's why I consider their beliefs not only foolish, but dangerous... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #56
What did "Jesus himself" say about slavery? rug May 2012 #62
Yes, and Jesus was in favor of beating them... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #65
I see. You consider servants to be slaves. And you do not know what a parable is. rug May 2012 #66
When they can be beaten by masters, yes. Is that really too hard for you to understand? Humanist_Activist May 2012 #67
I'm not defending evil, I'm attacking ignorant remarks. rug May 2012 #68
Post removed Post removed May 2012 #69
Let me understand you. rug May 2012 #70
Anyone who defends the Bible and passages in it, equivocates, dissembles... Humanist_Activist May 2012 #71
Anyone who defends Bible passages is defending evil? rug May 2012 #72
yes generally the term in the bible refers to people who are slaves. Warren Stupidity May 2012 #76
Not only are they condoning it.... eqfan592 May 2012 #73
Thou shalt not pick your nose in public places (notfoundanywhereeither 4:22) LARED May 2012 #77
Wow, so slavery is analogous to nose-picking? laconicsax May 2012 #79
You're making that analogy not me. LARED May 2012 #80
So your strongest condemnation of slavery skepticscott May 2012 #81
Of course I made no statement about how I feel about slavery, so lets make something up to make LARED May 2012 #83
Exactly what you said was skepticscott May 2012 #85
OK lets try this LARED May 2012 #87
Except it's what you posted. laconicsax May 2012 #82
Because as already explained it was not a counter example LARED May 2012 #84
The OP made no such appeal. laconicsax May 2012 #86
Again you ignore what I have said about both posts LARED May 2012 #88
The historical context is that the bible is 2000 years or more out-of-date muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #89
Well that is certainly one view LARED May 2012 #90
Yes, it's a product of its culture and times muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #91
Keep running away from what you posted. laconicsax May 2012 #95
Yes, continue to distort the facts LARED May 2012 #96
Hmm...so quoting you exactly is distorting the facts? laconicsax May 2012 #97
What fallacy is it when someone purposefully omits relevant information? LARED May 2012 #98
Ooh! Now repeating your words is deceit! laconicsax May 2012 #100
When you figure out what counter example means let me know. LARED May 2012 #101
You deny that you gave nose-picking as an example in response to slavery? laconicsax May 2012 #102
At least you did not call what I posted a counter example again. LARED May 2012 #103
What's funny is you continue to claim that what you posted wasn't an attempt at a counterexample. eqfan592 May 2012 #105
That claim is consistence with what I have posted. LARED May 2012 #106
Looked for it in the Periodic Table of Elements, too. Still no dice... LanternWaste May 2012 #92
No one claims the Periodic Table is a moral guide. trotsky May 2012 #93
Oh really? laconicsax May 2012 #94
........ eqfan592 May 2012 #99
If you just consider the Biblical texts dealing with slavery in the historic context in which they Thats my opinion May 2012 #104
+1 nt LARED May 2012 #107
The defense that the Bible is skepticscott May 2012 #108
Seems like a someone should have asked this a long time ago LARED May 2012 #109
First, please state for the record skepticscott May 2012 #110
There are many simple points that one could draw out of the OP LARED May 2012 #111
This message was self-deleted by its author cbayer May 2012 #112
Is that what you were doing when you compared slavery to nose-picking? laconicsax May 2012 #113
You already know the answer to that is no. But keep trying. nt LARED May 2012 #114

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
3. Mark 12:31?
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:14 AM
May 2012

"The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” I'll leave the group to judge if it counts as a counter argument to the OP, assuming that was your intention.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
6. Which requires one to acknowledge a slave as one's neighbor.
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:43 AM
May 2012

Do you think slave-owning Christians did?

Of course, some slave owners thought they were genuinely loving their slaves by helping them out of their "savage heathen" life, putting them to work and giving them Christianity. So in that regard they were following that commandment pretty well.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
7. It doesn't mention slavery at all.
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:49 AM
May 2012

It references Leviticus 19:18.

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
10. That verse is even more friendly to the pro-slavery position.
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:53 AM
May 2012

Clearly implying that "your neighbor" is "your people" - other races need not apply.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
31. Here's the passage.
Fri May 11, 2012, 02:36 PM
May 2012

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[There is no commandment greater than these.”


32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.

33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.


Your clear implication is rather murky.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
34. My "clear implication" is that there is no clear interpretation.
Fri May 11, 2012, 05:31 PM
May 2012

Where specifically does Jesus condemn slavery? Where does he specifically define who one's neighbor is?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
35. I'm not sure that he discusses slavery at all but here's the answer to your second question.
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:20 PM
May 2012

Luke 10

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’;and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”(AI)

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.

31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.

32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.

34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 3

35 The next day he took out two denarii[ and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
39. Oh in typical biblical fashion, there's still plenty of wiggle room.
Sat May 12, 2012, 07:08 AM
May 2012

Jesus asks: "Who was a neighbor to the injured man?"

The Samaritan was. "The one who had mercy on him."

Therefore, *my* neighbor is someone that does something good for me. If they aren't doing what I like, they aren't my neighbor. Too easy.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
40. "But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'”
Sat May 12, 2012, 08:32 AM
May 2012

You have a particulary churlish view of one of the most humanitarian passages in scripture.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
41. Why do you accuse me of having that view? That is rude, not necessary,
Sat May 12, 2012, 09:48 AM
May 2012

and you need to stop making these things personal. Keep it out of the gutter, rug.

I am pointing out how someone else could easily interpret the passage to restrict who gets the label of "neighbor."

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
44. Actually, the contrast is between your interpretation of the parable and his.
Sat May 12, 2012, 10:10 AM
May 2012

And both seem to have some validity.

EDIT: Tho even your interpretation of it does not seem to apply to the issue of slavery.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
4. Sorry, not to be an asshole, but that's a pretty weak excuse...
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:21 AM
May 2012

...for what is supposed to be a divine/holy scripture. At least it is in my book.

 

humblebum

(5,881 posts)
5. Considering that slavery was a normal accepted part of virtually all societies
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:41 AM
May 2012

at that time, I would expect nothing different. However, the Bible does refer to how slaves are to be treated kindly. To apply today's standards to another era is plainly foolish. You and those like you clearly have an agenda.
Guess what. Even atheists of the day had slaves or condoned slavery.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
12. Wow, coming out with both barrels of "fail" firing today, aren't we, humblebum?
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:54 AM
May 2012

Indeed to apply today's standards to another era IS foolish, yet that is not what I was doing. I was questioning the holy nature of the bible because, in my opinion, an all powerful deity should be above such things as the "standards of an era" and instead SHOULD have been able to affect what those standards were through the inspiration that said deity gave to those who wrote its "holy scripture."

That atheists of the day had slaves is a completely meaningless statement in the context of the discussion, because as you said, to apply today's standards to another era is plainly foolish.

 

humblebum

(5,881 posts)
14. So now you assuming to speak for a god in which you do not believe? Your
Fri May 11, 2012, 11:02 AM
May 2012

accusations are no more ridiculous than if I were to blame atheists here for refusing to stand up and speak out for those who were enslaved during the more recent times under atheistic dictators. Shameful.

I do consider your argument to be quite ridiculous and clearly motivated by bias against another group. You clearly have an anti-religious agenda.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
19. My argument is a part of why I became an atheist in the first place.
Fri May 11, 2012, 11:17 AM
May 2012

I don't "assume" to speak for a god I don't believe exists. I don't speak for any god period. I would "assume" that an "all powerful deity of the universe" to be of a higher moral fiber than the deity that is described in the bible. That this deity fails to pass even the most basic of moral tests based on the writings of his "holy scriptures" is why I left the christian church in the first place, and eventually became an atheist.

I'm not blaming "people" for anything at all, and that you continue to try and imply that I am and use that as some sort of counter argument is what is truly "shameful."

As for my "anti-religious agenda" it extends only so far as to keep religion out of politics. Do I view religion as doing more harm than good? Yes. But do I go out of my way to make every practitioner of said religion to feel like an asshole for following it? I try not to. And do I still believe people should have the right to the free exercise of religion? Absolutely.

 

humblebum

(5,881 posts)
20. And I will still challenge your assumptions when you introduce such jaded arguments as this.
Fri May 11, 2012, 11:24 AM
May 2012

You are not critiquing the nature of politics. You are clearly in support of being anti-religious.

 

humblebum

(5,881 posts)
29. I think that you already know that your so-called argument is
Fri May 11, 2012, 12:45 PM
May 2012

a huge red herring fallacy, which proves that your intentions are solely anti-religious.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
32. There are a few words you are misuing, humblebum.
Fri May 11, 2012, 05:01 PM
May 2012

Last edited Sun May 13, 2012, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

1. Argument
2. red-herring
3. Fallacy
4. Proves
5. Intentions
6. Solely
7.anti-religious


"Full of fail", indeed!

Response to cleanhippie (Reply #32)

 

humblebum

(5,881 posts)
38. And how was that a personal attack? More like a response
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:46 PM
May 2012

to an attack I would say. You are an old hand at playing that violin music in the background.

Response to humblebum (Reply #38)

LTX

(1,020 posts)
15. Depends on whether you view
Fri May 11, 2012, 11:05 AM
May 2012

the works as man's attempt to explain or capture the divine, or as "miraculously" authored by the divine. If the latter, I agree, it would be a weak excuse.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
21. This is very true.
Fri May 11, 2012, 11:24 AM
May 2012

My catechism taught that it was written by man, tho "inspired" by god. A sort of halfway point between the two. I would then argue that god could have inspired better words. But if they book was truly just man's attempt to explain or capture the divine, it begs the question as to why the current church doesn't do away with some of the less, well, "inspired" passages. That this seems so difficult to do leads me to believe most practitioners believe there is at least some divine nature to the words as they were written.

LTX

(1,020 posts)
27. I think the
Fri May 11, 2012, 12:25 PM
May 2012

social and political need to have a fixed liturgy evolved into attributions of scriptural divinity. The text itself is an anchor for group cohesion, in the absence of which you have un-moored autonomy, a very frightening drift much akin to lack of, or loss of, family or tribal association or support. To set about changing the text is to yank the anchor up. I tend to think this is particularly true for protestant churches that lack the history and traditions of clerical interpretation, and place great importance on the individual's ability to discern the divine. The bible then takes on even greater importance as a fixed and unchanging source for both cohesion and revelation. In short, the bible itself becomes the priest.

The permanency of scripture and commentary is actually a matter of considerable debate in my own religious traditions. Talmudic commentary was, for example, originally oral and evolving, but itself became subject to written fixity and editorial taboo. The irony of this is not unrecognized. After all, man is an inherently hubristic scribe.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
9. But they were written after the invention of slavery.
Fri May 11, 2012, 10:49 AM
May 2012

If the son of god couldn't be bothered to mention it was a bad idea, what kind of moral authority should we give him?

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
58. Who didn't take very long to become slave-masters themselves.
Sun May 13, 2012, 12:21 PM
May 2012

It didn't take long for the Israelites to sweep into the land of Caanan in a tsunami of genocide, and murder or enslave everyone in the way.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
46. Gotta love the Ten Commandments.
Sat May 12, 2012, 10:37 PM
May 2012

You'd think a code of conduct handed down to Moses directly from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity would have something about not treating fellow human beings as property.

Out of all the serious moral abuses that crop up over and over again throughout history, you'd think that God would have mentioned it in the Ten Commandments. Guess it must have slipped His mind.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
47. Well the obvious response to that...
Sat May 12, 2012, 10:50 PM
May 2012

...is that there were 15 commandments to start with, but Mel Brooks broke one of the tablets.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
59. Gotta wonder what the other five were...
Sun May 13, 2012, 01:06 PM
May 2012

Though I'd take a hint from the first three, which can be boiled down to one - Thou shalt keep thine lips planted on Mine ass at all times.

Maybe the missing five are of the same spirit - we are dealing with a God that shows signs of severe narcissism...

 

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)
48. It would have contradicted the tenth one.
Sat May 12, 2012, 11:01 PM
May 2012

You know, the one about not coveting another's property including their wife, livestock, and slaves.

It would have also contradicted the verses saying to take heathens as slaves who will belong to your family forever.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
50. Not just the Ten Commandments
Sun May 13, 2012, 09:20 AM
May 2012

But the whole litany of rules and regulations laid down by god in the OT. Nowhere is slavery forbidden or even mildly disapproved of. All the idiot apologists on this board have is the argument (which even they must know is lamer than a eunuch's willie) "The Bible is a product of its times"

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
49. Wow, could the Christians in this thread be any more defensive and dishonest?
Sun May 13, 2012, 08:53 AM
May 2012

Jesus himself said slaves should obey their masters, yet this entire thread is filled with equivocating and dishonest cherry picking of the Bible. Why can't they just admit that God was wrong?

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
51. Well, yes they could
Sun May 13, 2012, 09:21 AM
May 2012

And they were in a previous thread when asked whether they would sacrifice their own child if god ordered them to.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
52. If you are referring to the thread I started, only one religious person said no unequivocally...
Sun May 13, 2012, 10:26 AM
May 2012

all the others, at least a half dozen or so, are wanna be murderers of their own children. That's what happens when you put piety before humanity.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
54. I will kill to protect myself or others from imminent bodily harm...
Sun May 13, 2012, 11:26 AM
May 2012

and I would die to protect other PEOPLE as well. Because I value PEOPLE over religion.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
60. So you value PEOPLE over yourself ?
Sun May 13, 2012, 01:23 PM
May 2012

Last edited Sun May 13, 2012, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I thought you had no religion so the fact that you value PEOPLE over something you don't have and have no use for is meaningless.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
61. He said he would die to protect other people.
Sun May 13, 2012, 01:31 PM
May 2012

Did you intentionally ignore this, or did you somehow just miss it?

Honestly, I'm curious to see where exactly you intend to go with this line of questioning, and what overall point you think you are going to make.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
63. Should have been "So" in the heading
Sun May 13, 2012, 02:00 PM
May 2012

I'll edit it. We'll see if this goes anywhere if it does great, if it doesn't no loss. I have no point to make just curious myself.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
64. I would say yes to the first question...
Sun May 13, 2012, 02:03 PM
May 2012

and I kinda see your point, I view religion as a means to excuse unethical actions and still be forgiven(Christianity at least). Helps alleviate the guilt when you don't have to answer to yourself. It is also used to excuse or belittle atrocities and injustices.

 

Leontius

(2,270 posts)
78. Are you saying that as Christians we sin as much and as often
Sun May 13, 2012, 05:41 PM
May 2012

as we like be forgiven and then continue in the same sin. Is that you understanding of what Christians are taught?

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
55. As I recall
Sun May 13, 2012, 11:35 AM
May 2012

it was very difficult to get a straight yes or no answer out of anyone. The thread was a cesspool of evasion, defensiveness and disingenuous dissembling. Christians tend to get that way when confronted with those types of uncomfortable questions.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
56. Yes, that's why I consider their beliefs not only foolish, but dangerous...
Sun May 13, 2012, 12:05 PM
May 2012

the easiest moral choices anyone can make are perverted and skewed to such an extent by their precious holy book, but they don't see it, instead they attack those who bring it up.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
62. What did "Jesus himself" say about slavery?
Sun May 13, 2012, 01:44 PM
May 2012

Ephesians 6:5-8

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

Colossians 3:22-25

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

1 Peter 2:13-21

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Do you believe the writers of these Epistles were condoning slavery?

Try not to be dishonest and defensive.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
65. Yes, and Jesus was in favor of beating them...
Sun May 13, 2012, 02:11 PM
May 2012
"The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." - Luke 12:47-48


I'm sure you will try to dissemble this as with everything else.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
66. I see. You consider servants to be slaves. And you do not know what a parable is.
Sun May 13, 2012, 02:27 PM
May 2012

Here's Luke 12 with the six prior verses you left out.

41 And Peter said, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even unto all?

42 And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall set over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?

43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will set him over all that he hath.

45 But if that servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

46 the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful.

Someone here is dissembling and it's not me.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
67. When they can be beaten by masters, yes. Is that really too hard for you to understand?
Sun May 13, 2012, 02:35 PM
May 2012

I really don't understand how someone can defend this type of evil.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
68. I'm not defending evil, I'm attacking ignorant remarks.
Sun May 13, 2012, 02:40 PM
May 2012

In this case, that a parable by Jesus about first century servants equates to his endorsement of slavery.

The adjective only scratches the surface.

Response to rug (Reply #68)

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
70. Let me understand you.
Sun May 13, 2012, 03:45 PM
May 2012

Are you saying that I, personally "defend evil, every fucking day" or that every member of the Catholic Church "defend evil, every fucking day"?

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
71. Anyone who defends the Bible and passages in it, equivocates, dissembles...
Sun May 13, 2012, 03:51 PM
May 2012

etc. is defending evil. I don't see how else it can be termed.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
72. Anyone who defends Bible passages is defending evil?
Sun May 13, 2012, 03:57 PM
May 2012

John 4:21

"And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also"

Are you deranged?

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
76. yes generally the term in the bible refers to people who are slaves.
Sun May 13, 2012, 05:12 PM
May 2012

Not always, but usually. Slavery was pervasive. It was a ubiquitous fact of live in the ancient world.

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
80. You're making that analogy not me.
Sun May 13, 2012, 07:56 PM
May 2012

My point (although subtle) was that there are lots of things we find distasteful that are not forbidden in the bible.

More to the point, historical and theological context is important if one desires an honest attempt to understand what is in the bible. Slogans like the OP are about as useful as what I posted. Meaning not at all

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
81. So your strongest condemnation of slavery
Sun May 13, 2012, 08:15 PM
May 2012

is that it is "distasteful"? You are one sick person. But hey, as long as you can claim to be "subtle", I guess everything's hunky-dory in your moral universe.

And "context" only matters if you are claiming that gawd doesn't actually exist, and if all of the rules and moral pronouncements in the Bible were invented by humans living at a particular time. Because the gawd that most Xstians fawn over is not a product of any "time". If he actually did exist as anything like described and worshipped, he would have known that slavery was a horrible moral evil 3000 years ago just as well as he would today (assuming of course that he would ever know it).

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
83. Of course I made no statement about how I feel about slavery, so lets make something up to make
Sun May 13, 2012, 09:14 PM
May 2012

people think I did. It seems to be the thing to do around here.

But if it makes you feel better slavery is unconscionable, disgusting, deplorable, etc?

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
85. Exactly what you said was
Sun May 13, 2012, 10:02 PM
May 2012

"My point (although subtle) was that there are lots of things we find distasteful that are not forbidden in the bible." You can lie and say that slavery was not part of what you were referring to there, but that's all it would be. Otherwise that statement would have had no relevance to the topic at all. No one here needs to be told what you meant, despite your dissembling.

But nice backpedal. Shame that your Christian gawd has never felt the need for similar backpedaling any time in the last few millennia. If someone like you can learn it you'd think he/she/it would have no problem annunciating the concept.

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
87. OK lets try this
Mon May 14, 2012, 06:22 AM
May 2012

Yes, the word distasteful did refer to slavery among many other things that are distasteful, but that was not really the point of my post.

I see how you may have misunderstood my words, but why did you try to frame my words as "my strongest condemnation of slavery"?

You attacked me instead of what I was trying to say. Again ad hominem attacks are sadly practically expected.

 

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)
82. Except it's what you posted.
Sun May 13, 2012, 08:45 PM
May 2012

OP: Slavery isn't explicitly condemned in the Bible.
You: Neither is nose-picking.

If you weren't comparing slavery to nose-picking, then why did you feel that the absence of a Biblical prohibition on nose-picking was an appropriate counter example?

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
84. Because as already explained it was not a counter example
Sun May 13, 2012, 09:31 PM
May 2012

in the way you want it to be. I was a example of a similar type emotional appeal. (not a very good one I admit)

The OP make the appeal that the bible does not condemn slavery so we are to draw negative conclusions presumably about God

Me; Nose picking is not condemned either so we can draw another (although far less negative) conclusion presumably about God

In short neither posts has any real substance. The point of my post.

Of course it is much more fun to claim that I somehow equate nose picking with slavery.

 

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)
86. The OP made no such appeal.
Mon May 14, 2012, 12:31 AM
May 2012

The OP merely states that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. Anything beyond that is the product of your imagination.

You, on the other hand did indirectly compare slavery to nose-picking. It's fun to watch you run away from your own words when they're so readily available for everyone to read. Did you not think anyone would read what you wrote?

Let's see the entirety of what you replied to again:

"Thou shalt not enslave your fellow human beings." ~ Absolutelyfuckingnowhere 3:16
Found this on FB.


And you decided that "Thou shalt not pick your nose in public places (notfoundanywhereeither 4:22)" was a good, relevant response.
 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
88. Again you ignore what I have said about both posts
Mon May 14, 2012, 06:29 AM
May 2012
"More to the point, historical and theological context is important if one desires an honest attempt to understand what is in the bible. Slogans like the OP are about as useful as what I posted. Meaning not at all"


Products of imagination works both ways. Yes?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,152 posts)
89. The historical context is that the bible is 2000 years or more out-of-date
Mon May 14, 2012, 09:15 AM
May 2012

The OP make the appeal that the bible does not condemn slavery so we are to draw negative conclusions about the bible. It has plenty of outdated moral claims that are complete crap, and condemned by any thinking modern day person.

It should be jettisoned as a reliable guide to ethics. It's no better than Aesop's Fables. Yet conservatives cling on to it. They call it 'holy', or 'sacred'. Some even claim it is 'inspired', or 'the Word of God'.

If Christianity let go of the bible, it could start progressing.

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
90. Well that is certainly one view
Mon May 14, 2012, 09:24 AM
May 2012

What was meant by "historical context", is that interpretation of the bible requires one to view it within the culture and times it was written.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,152 posts)
91. Yes, it's a product of its culture and times
Mon May 14, 2012, 09:50 AM
May 2012

and thus of marginal relevance to today. But it gets quoted and used as justification for someone's morals far more than Plato or Marcus Aurelius.

 

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)
97. Hmm...so quoting you exactly is distorting the facts?
Mon May 14, 2012, 02:56 PM
May 2012

That's good to know.

Watch me distort the facts again!

The OP reads:

"Thou shalt not enslave your fellow human beings." ~ Absolutelyfuckingnowhere 3:16

You replied:
Thou shalt not pick your nose in public places (notfoundanywhereeither 4:22)


It's so much fun to distort facts!
 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
98. What fallacy is it when someone purposefully omits relevant information?
Mon May 14, 2012, 03:37 PM
May 2012

Cherry picking? Or completely ignores what was said in order to make a specious argument?

Is it deceit, sophistry, or something else.

Or perhaps that's an alternate definition of "fun".

Either way your act is not fooling anyone.

 

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)
100. Ooh! Now repeating your words is deceit!
Mon May 14, 2012, 05:44 PM
May 2012

You offered nose-picking as a counter example to slavery. Keep trying to claim that moral high ground.

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
101. When you figure out what counter example means let me know.
Mon May 14, 2012, 06:05 PM
May 2012

I'm sure that won't stop you from making your own definition anyway.

 

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)
102. You deny that you gave nose-picking as an example in response to slavery?
Mon May 14, 2012, 06:09 PM
May 2012

I can quote you again if you like.

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
103. At least you did not call what I posted a counter example again.
Mon May 14, 2012, 06:19 PM
May 2012

I was expecting the usual where you try to create a new definition for yourself.

It's a pretty stupid game you're playing that I will not continue. Everyone can see what I said for themselves and can figure it out without your help in constraining my words to fit in the little box that allows you to claim some sort of sophomoric victory.

So please post what I said again (please don't bother with context) as I'm sure everyone will be impressed. I know I am.

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
105. What's funny is you continue to claim that what you posted wasn't an attempt at a counterexample.
Mon May 14, 2012, 06:46 PM
May 2012

coun·ter·ex·am·ple (kountr-g-zmpl)
n.
An example that refutes or disproves a hypothesis, proposition, or theorem.

Are you honestly attempting to say that it was not your intention to do this very thing when making your original post? While it is true that there was no clearly stated proposition made in the OP, it was clear from a common sense standpoint, as was your attempted refutation.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
92. Looked for it in the Periodic Table of Elements, too. Still no dice...
Mon May 14, 2012, 11:32 AM
May 2012

Looked for it in the Periodic Table of Elements, too. Still no dice...

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
93. No one claims the Periodic Table is a moral guide.
Mon May 14, 2012, 11:57 AM
May 2012

Plenty of people claim that about the bible.

Care to try another non sequitur?

Thats my opinion

(2,001 posts)
104. If you just consider the Biblical texts dealing with slavery in the historic context in which they
Mon May 14, 2012, 06:32 PM
May 2012

were written and lived out, there is an acceptance of slavery. The Hebrews had in their midst, when they had settled in Canaan "sojourners" who had become part of their families. The word "slave" and the word "servant" or "sojourner" are from the same roots in Greek and in Hebrew. To understand this arrangement as either the American experience with slavery or slaves in the Roman context is to be unaware of the meaning of the words and the social reality. Nevertheless, to insist that the Bible condemns slavery in any form is impossible.

These ancient people were citizens of their times. They accepted the social norms around them, and the differentiation in social classes was iron clad. One could not make the argument that the pure secularists of the era also condemned slavery. They were all in the same boat.

There is, however, in the Biblical ethic a sub-thread that is not just conditioned by society, but has profound implications underlying a basic sets of ethical notions. It was these notions which escape social customs that Jesus emphasized when he held the humanity of slaves, Samaritans, women, lepers, Romans, tax-collectors and any other group that society called sub-human.

The basic Christian ethic is not captive to any social custom, but offers a perspective far above what is going on at the moment. So Jesus was an ethical revolutionary who laid out a higher and deeper way to live, even while the religion around him was trapped in its own cultural patterns.

This hold true today. It is useless to point to texts which arose within a cultural setting to prove anything, except that is what the culture was doing and thinking at the moment.

It is curious to listen to people who have no use for the Bible citing verses that prove this or that.That is how fundamentalists of all sorts use the Bible. It is not how progressives that see underlying ethical models use it.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
108. The defense that the Bible is
Mon May 14, 2012, 08:22 PM
May 2012

"just a product of its times" is total bullshit in response to this argument, and why it is has been explained multiple times on this board, so why you continue to repeat it? That argument is only viable if the Bible and everything in it is entirely a human invention, and if the "god" that over a billion Xstians ans Jews believe in fervently doesn't exist (since that god is most definitely NOT a product of those or any other "times&quot . Is that really your position? If so, have the courage to step right up and say so. Otherwise, take your argument and trash it.

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
109. Seems like a someone should have asked this a long time ago
Mon May 14, 2012, 09:26 PM
May 2012

(Perhaps someone did and I missed it) but what is the argument being made in the OP?

""Thou shalt not enslave your fellow human beings." ~ Absolutelyfuckingnowhere 3:16" is a statement that makes leaves one to interpret for themselves what the OP's point may be.

You seem to know so I am asking you.



 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
110. First, please state for the record
Mon May 14, 2012, 09:53 PM
May 2012

that you are completely clueless about the very simple and obvious points of the OP, which are connected to many, many previous threads here.

 

LARED

(11,735 posts)
111. There are many simple points that one could draw out of the OP
Tue May 15, 2012, 04:46 AM
May 2012

I was simply making the observation that if there was one argument in particular the OP had in mind it remains unknown.

Are you always this unpleasant?

Response to LARED (Reply #111)

 

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)
113. Is that what you were doing when you compared slavery to nose-picking?
Tue May 15, 2012, 02:25 PM
May 2012

Last edited Tue May 15, 2012, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Talk about unpleasant!

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»"Thou shalt not ensl...