The Bible and Slavery

[paximperium]

Not according to these translations on the Blue Letter Bible website. Ten translations say "servant" and one says "bondman"
KJV,
NKJV
NLT
NIV
ESV
RSV
ASV
YLT
NASB
WEB
HNV
DBY Yes and we all know what servant and bondsman means.
And we all know it says lashing and beatings which Jesus and you eagerly support.

[RoboTimbo]

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/c89b5497e5.jpg
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/urvashi-dhanorkar-small-screen-actress-assaults-domestic-servant_100236466.html


DOC, you missed pax's posting of this beaten child. How can you defend your (and Jesus' and the bible's) stance that she is better off as a slave bondservant?

[BobTheDonkey]

Ok, Doc, so let's acknowledge that your selected 10 translations don't use the word "slave."

Moving on from arguing semantics, let's discuss what the passage is actually saying:

That it is ok to beat your servant/slave/bondservant if he/she is not prepared for your return.

Do you deny that this is what the passage is saying?
How is that morally superior?

[zooterkin]

Ok, so you all find 2 translations out of about 12 translations on Blue Letter Bible.


Do you want a hand with those goalposts?
Name just "one" of the many biblical translations that are on such sites as Blue Letter Bible, or Gateway, that translate Luke 12:47 using the word slave instead of servant -- just one.

[joobz]

Ok, so you all find 2 translations out of about 12 translations on Blue Letter Bible.
Truth isn't a popularity contest.

The preponderance of the evidence still points to it being translated as servant.
False, the Preponderance of "translations" state servant. The Preponderance of EVIDENCE says bondservant/slave. (Aka doulos).

It is irresponsible to now go around saying Jesus condones slavery on such scarce evidence. And even if it was translated 12 out of 12 as slave it wouldn't mean Jesus supported the institution of slavery anymore then Jesus saying "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" means he supported the military takeover of Palestine by the Romans.
It's in the bible. Jesus uses the institution of beating slaves to explain our relationship with god.



But if people still want to say Jesus supported slavery, go ahead, it's your credibility on the line.
I noticed you avoided to do the honorable thing, and admit error. ANd now you claim my credibility is on the line. Well, you are right. It is. It always is and I am happy to say my credibility remains intact.

A person like Jesus who says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "I have come to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and set at liberty those that are bruised" obviously would not support our modern concept of slavery.
Then why did he adocate the beating of slaves?
It really is a simple questionm, with fairly simple results:

1.) If it is because Jesus was a product of his time, then would argue that jesus wasn't divine.

2.) If it is because Jesus didn't want to tackle that issue, then it means slavery wasn't as important of an issue as, say, worshipping god. That seems like misplaced priorities.

3.) If it is because Jesus was attempting to avoid being arrested and killed by Rome, well that argument makes no sense. Jesus was, supposedly, arrested and killed by Rome. Why wouldn't he fight a major injustice like slave ownership.

4.) If it is because Jesus views slavery as justifiable in some cases, then God really is immoral.


If some people want to continue to say he did, like I said, its your credibility.
According to the bible, Jesus said, "And that slave who knew his master's will and didn't prepare himself or do it [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#fen-HCSB-25675c)] will be severely beaten. (D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2012:41-47&version=HCSB#cen-HCSB-25675D))."

And as the apostle Paul said, slaves are equal to others in the eyes of God.
But that obviously isn't true. Where in the bible does it say that a slave may beat a master for breaking a rule (knowingly or unknowingly)?
What Paul is saying is, "Suck it up slaves! god will treat you better once you die. But until then, pick the crops and obey!"

Maybe that was why that slave girl mentioned in my Evidence thread in the History Forum was willing to be martyred for Christianity.
Um, did you see the slave girl mentioned in THIS THREAD? DOC, you have advocated the beating of slaves as acceptable. Please read that article and claim that it is acceptable.

[pakeha]

Here's another take on slavery in the NT
Culture
The word in the New Testament usually translated as “servant” actually means “slave,” and referred to someone who was owned or controlled by someone else, not just a servant hired to do a certain job. Some slaves performed menial household tasks. Others, called “stewards,” supervised the work of lesser servants or managed the master’s finances. In the time of Jesus, some people were slaves because they were born to slave parents. Others were captured in war and were forced to become slaves. Some people actually sold themselves as slaves because they could have a higher standard of life as a slave than if they had to keep struggling to find housing or food on their own.

from
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:aofc9eRFJM0J:www.americanbible.org/brcpages/SlavesandServants+servant+slave+new+testament&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

[paximperium]

SERVANT

sur'-vant ('ebhedh; doulos): A very common word with a variety of meanings, all implying a greater or less degree of inferiority and want of freedom: (1) The most frequent usage is as the equivalent of "slave" (which see), with its various shades in position (Gen 9:25; 24:9; Ex 21:5; Mt 10:24; Lk 17:7, and often); but also a hired workman where "hired servant" translates Hebrew and Greek expressions which differ from the above. (2) An attendant in the service of someone, as Joshua was the "servant" the Revised Version (British and American) "minister" of Moses (Nu 11:28). (3) As a 'term of respectful self-depreciation referring to one's self, "thy servant." or "your servant" is used in place of the personal pronoun of the first person: (a) in the presence of superiors (Gen 19:2; 32:18, and often); (b) in addressing the Supreme Being (1 Sam 3:9; Ps 19:11; 27:9; Lk 2:29, and often). (4) Officials of every grade are called the "servants" of kings, princes, etc. (1 Sam 29:3; 2 Sam 16:1; 1 Ki 11:26; Prov 14:35, and often). (5) The position of a king in relation to his people (1 Ki 12:7). (6) One who is distinguished as obedient and faithful to God or Christ (Josh 1:2; 2 Ki 8:19; Dan 6:20; Col 4:12; 2 Tim 2:24). (7) One who is enslaved by sin (Jn 8:34).
William Joseph Mcglothlin
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/S/SERVANT/

[Hokulele]

The other possibility is the fact that slavery is an ugly concept and the people translating the Bible wanted to whitewash Jesus' little speech. They deliberately chose the less repulsive translation to make it appear that Jesus didn't condone slavery, although the original text suggests he did.

[joobz]

The other possibility is the fact that slavery is an ugly concept and the people translating the Bible wanted to whitewash Jesus' little speech. They deliberately chose the less repulsive translation to make it appear that Jesus didn't condone slavery, although the original text suggests he did.

I have a sneaky feeling that this is close to the truth.

[DOC]

And you seem to imply that slavery is wrong. If you are an atheist and there is no God, this is just an opinion you have and your opinion is no different then people who think slavery is OK, because you have no absolutes to base it on. I have an absolute to base my belief that slavery is wrong on. Jesus(God) said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". And thus if someone believes my belief is wrong then they are going against God and their belief is indeed wrong.

No. This argument predisposes your god exists, and exists as you think he does. I see no evidence for your god so arguments from (fictitious) authority do not prove a thing. There is no "absolute" morality, except in the sense that in any given situation there might be a "best" option, depending on what everybody's goals are...

No, it doesn't presuppose a God exists, I said "if" there is no God, this is just an opinion because it is not based on an absolute.

And you talk of a best option. What if the Roman Empire decides the best option is to have slavery continue or what if the German people of World War II decide the best option is to harass and imprison the Jews. Without an absolute universal moral standard which can only come from God there is no basis to say what they are doing is wrong other than opinion.

This is known as the "Moral Argument" for God's existence. Since so many people have the feeling that such things as the Holocaust or slavery are wrong, then where did that feeling come from. The argument is that it must have come from an absolute Moral Law giver who is God and not from primordial swamp scum. Thomas Jefferson said we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Primordial swamp scum (the creator of life for most atheists) can not endow people with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Hokulele]

No, it doesn't presuppose a God exists, I said "if" there is no God, this is just an opinion because it is not based on an absolute.

And you talk of a best option. What if the Roman Empire decides the best option is to have slavery continue or what if the German people of World War II decide the best option is to harass and imprison the Jews. Without an absolute universal moral standard which can only come from God there is no basis to say what they are doing is wrong other than opinion.

This is known as the "Moral Argument" for God's existence. Since so many people have the feeling that such things as the Holocaust or slavery are wrong, then where did that feeling come from. The argument is that it must have come from an absolute Moral Law giver who is God and not from primordial swamp scum. Thomas Jefferson said we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Primordial swamp scum (the creator of life for most atheists) can not endow people with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


How would there be Jews if everyone knows there is no god?


To your question, mirror neurons. The same reason monkeys have a sense of fair play and right and wrong.

[joobz]

Primordial swamp scum (the creator of life for most atheists) can not endow people with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This is the dumbest mischaracterization of a position that I have ever seen.

Nothing endows me with rights. We, as sentient individuals, endow ourselves with these rights. Why do we do it? Because the rational individual can recognize the advantage to establishing a system where one person does not have rights which supercede another's.

This is why I (and many others) are able to clearly, and quite rationally reject slavery.

Can you make such a claim using god and Jesus?
Remember, We've read the bible and see Jesus condoning slavery.

[kurious_kathy]

The other possibility is the fact that slavery is an ugly concept and the people translating the Bible wanted to whitewash Jesus' little speech. They deliberately chose the less repulsive translation to make it appear that Jesus didn't condone slavery, although the original text suggests he did.

Well I do not believe Jesus ever condoned slavery, I see he just identidies it and says watch out because of the way the world is filled with evil men that will make others slaves if given the opportunity to do so.

[zooterkin]

Well I do not believe Jesus ever condoned slavery, I see he just identidies it and says watch out because of the way the world is filled with evil men that will make others slaves if given the opportunity to do so.

Have you actually read the bible?

[pakeha]

DOC's latest:

...

[QUOTE]This is known as the "Moral Argument" for God's existence. Since so many people have the feeling that such things as the Holocaust or slavery are wrong, then where did that feeling come from. The argument is that it must have come from an absolute Moral Law giver who is God and not from primordial swamp scum.

It reads more like a combination of argumentum ad popularum with an appeal to tradition and with a discrete flirting with a reductio ad Hitlerum. Not to mention the final touch of poisoning the well.

Thomas Jefferson said we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Primordial swamp scum (the creator of life for most atheists) can not endow people with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Well, that's a step up from the "goo to you through the zoo" reasoning.
I especially liked the in-joke of referring to slavery as a moral evil and then that brazen, cynical use of Jefferson to wrap up the message in Stars and Stripes.

[amb]

Have you actually read the bible?

It appears not. If she has, she, like all xtians, pick and choose what seems right and ignores what surely seems out and out fantasy.

[zooterkin]

Well, that's a step up from the "goo to you through the zoo" reasoning.
I especially liked the in-joke of referring to slavery as a moral evil and then that brazen, cynical use of Jefferson to wrap up the message in Stars and Stripes.

The slave-owning, miracle-disbelieving Jefferson, you mean?

[pakeha]

Well I do not believe Jesus ever condoned slavery, I see he just identidies it and says watch out because of the way the world is filled with evil men that will make others slaves if given the opportunity to do so.

hi, kurious_kathy.
Would it surprise you to know that many Christians condoned not only slavery but racial segregation and apartheid because it is permitted in the bible?
That a goodly number of those 'evil men' were practising Christians?

[AdinDraco]

The Moral Agument has the premise that you can't have morals without God. This has not been demonstrated. Secular Morality and the Euthyphro Dilemma are also counter-arguments. These links (assuming they work) are just starting points...I don't claim to fully understand all the nuances just yet.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Euthyphro_dilemma
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Secular_morality

[zooterkin]

The Moral Agument has the premise that you can't have morals without God. This has not been demonstrated.

Well, since there is no god, and we do have morals...

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Well, that's a step up from the "goo to you through the zoo" reasoning.
I especially liked the in-joke of referring to slavery as a moral evil and then that brazen, cynical use of Jefferson to wrap up the message in Stars and Stripes.

The slave-owning, miracle-disbelieving Jefferson, you mean?

Yes. The very man, zooterkin.
That's why I used the words 'in-joke', 'brazen' and 'cynical'.

[dafydd]

Well I do not believe Jesus ever condoned slavery, I see he just identidies it and says watch out because of the way the world is filled with evil men that will make others slaves if given the opportunity to do so.

Leave it to the grown-ups Kathy.

[pakeha]

The Moral Agument has the premise that you can't have morals without God. This has not been demonstrated. Secular Morality and the Euthyphro Dilemma are also counter-arguments. These links (assuming they work) are just starting points...I don't claim to fully understand all the nuances just yet.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Euthyphro_dilemma
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Secular_morality

Thanks for those links, AdinDraco, I'd not seen Iron Chariots before.

[AdinDraco]

Thanks for those links, AdinDraco, I'd not seen Iron Chariots before.

No worries...got onto it from the Non-Prophets podcast, brought to you by the same people as the Atheist Experience tv show/podcast. Matt Dilahunty has done an excellent deconstruction of some of Ray Comfort's Way of the Master on the wiki. If you've never heard of the Jack Chick tracts, you've been missing out : http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Dark_Dungeons_%28Chick_tract%29
Incidently, Chariots of Iron is also the name of an excellent podcast and they both independently (I think) got their name from the bible (Judges 1:19?) where God, or his representive, was powerless before an enemy because they had chariots of iron (God's kryptonite??).

Back OT, if you're not already a fan and you've got time for podcasts/video, check out The Atheist Experience and sooner or later when a caller tries to bring God/bible and morality together, you'll get a fabulous Matt Dilahunty rant and a favourite rebuttal point is slavery in the bible. I'll try to find a shortened U-tube link and post it.

[AdinDraco]

Found one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGwfHxLkYK4
In the quote: substitute servant for slave and see it makes any difference.

Sorry, little off topic, but this one is good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HicMh19X_MA

[pakeha]

Thanks for the links, AdinDraco, I'll follow them through.
It will be interesting to see/hear those people you mentioned and incidentally find out what a podcast is.

added:
where God, or his representive, was powerless before an enemy because they had chariots of iron (God's kryptonite??).
That reminds me of that 'God is on the side which has the heaviest artillery' quotation, sometimes attributed to Churchill.

[amb]

God is also on the side of the person/s with the fattest wallet.

[pakeha]

Nice one, amb.
AdinDraco- I followed the links, learned what a podcast is and bookmarked the vids.
Thanks again! I owe you one.

[joobz]

Well I do not believe Jesus ever condoned slavery, I see he just identidies it and says watch out because of the way the world is filled with evil men that will make others slaves if given the opportunity to do so.WHat you believe and what the bible says are clearly not the same thing.
Read the parable of the faithful 'servant'.

[amb]

This is unbelievable. An atheist telling a christian where to look in the bible for a certain verse. :rolleyes: :D

[pakeha]

amb, be kindly. There are lots and lots of pages in the NT.
Perhaps kurious_kathy hasn't gotten as far as that bit.

[RoboTimbo]

Well I do not believe Jesus ever condoned slavery, I see he just identidies it and says watch out because of the way the world is filled with evil men that will make others slaves if given the opportunity to do so.

Where in the bible do you see that?

[AdinDraco]

This is unbelievable. An atheist telling a christian where to look in the bible for a certain verse. :rolleyes: :D

Not so surprising. Many atheists will tell you that actually reading the bible properly is what started their deconversion. Some of my favourite atheists actively recommand bible studies and comparitive religious studies because how many theists actually know anything about their bible beyond the cute stories told to them in school/church...they all know Noah saved the animals, 2 by 2, but do they know that Noah got drunk, cursed one of his relatives and that this passage is used to justify racism because the cursed lineage supposedly has dark skin? I sat down one summer xmas holidays, started at the beginning of the bible, and was profoundly disgusted with what I read. (sorry, rant, rant)

[wolfgirl]

Well I do not believe Jesus ever condoned slavery, I see he just identidies it and says watch out because of the way the world is filled with evil men that will make others slaves if given the opportunity to do so.Christ on a cracker, woman! How do you manage to keep all these mental acrobatics straight in your mind? The ones that require you to make things up and extrapolate things to make the bible say what you want it to say instead of what it actually says?

If the bible says something you agree with, it's the holy and unquestionable word of god.

If it says something you find uncomfortable, you simply decide it didn't really mean that at all, but rather this other thing that you find acceptable.

I guess I'd have gone crazy long ago, too, if I were trying to keep up with all this!

[HeyLeroy]

Not according to these translations on the Blue Letter Bible website. Ten translations say "servant" and one says "bondman"

KJV,
NKJV
NLT
NIV
ESV
RSV
ASV
YLT
WEB
HNV
DBY

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=12&v=47&t=KJV#47

The mistranslation of doulos (δοῦλος) started with the King James translation.

With in recent months, this Achilles Heel in the KJV-only apologetic has become vividly clear to me when I have been considering the translation of the NT Greek word doulos. The primary definition of doulos is "slave." The word is used over 100 times in the NT and carries the idea of slavery in the sense of a person being owned by a master. Ever since Christians have been translating the scripture into English the word "servant" or "bond-servant" has been used to translate doulos, and the KJV is no exception. In fact, the only time the KJV uses the word "slave" is in Jeremiah 2:14 and Revelation 18:13 and neither one of those passages is even translating the word doulos.

From here: http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2007/12/slaves-or-servants-pt-1.html

Also from there:

There are several key instances of doulos being used by biblical writers where the concept of slavery is clearly being expressed and the word "servant" just doesn't capture the true intent of the original author's meaning and hence the claim of "most accurate" translation for the KJV is erroneous.What I would like to do is consider some lexical definitions both Greek and English, demonstrate the theological importance of the word doulos and the necessity of it being translated as "slave" in the English text...

See also:

A kyrios* purchased a doulos from the slave market and made that doulos his. This concept is at the heart of the New Testament. Jesus our kyrios has purchased us believers and made us his (1 Cor 6:19, 20; 1 Pet 1:18, 19).

Only the HCSB has faithfully and consistently translated doulos and its cognates as “slave and so on.”
http://newleaven.com/2008/04/04/why-doulos-wasnt-given-a-fair-treatment/
*master

Also:

At the meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters this month, John MacArthur preached the sermon for the worship service.

In this sermon, he raised an interesting point. He claims that English translations of the New Testament, beginning with the 1560 Geneva Bible, water down the Greek term "doulos" with translations such as "servant" or "bondservant." He says that there are other Greek words for these two latter terms, but that "doulos," when it refers to persons, always and everywhere means, and only means, "slave."
http://www.puritanboard.com/f128/doulos-new-testament-44214/


And lastly: http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/NRB200928

ETA: I just saw that joobz beat me to it:

That was because it was a political choice.
http://newleaven.com/2008/04/04/why-doulos-wasnt-given-a-fair-treatment/
http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2007/12/slaves-or-servants-pt-1.html
The case is quite clear, DOC. Doulos is slave, not servant.

[HeyLeroy]

The second definition of doulos is Attendant or Servant and that is the definition that the scholars of the King James version chose to use in Luke 12:47

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1401

ETA:

the above website says this also regarding doulos in the King James:

KJV (127) - bond, 6; bondman, 1; servant, 120;

So in 127 times doulos is translated in the King James it is never translated as slave.

They also translated "holy spirit" as "holy ghost." Not sure their translation skills were wholly reliable.

Indeed:

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

Also from the same source:

The newly crowned King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604. This gathering proposed a new English version in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Three examples of problems the Puritans perceived with the Bishops' and Great Bibles were:

First, Galatians iv. 25 (from the Bishops' Bible). The Greek word susoichei is not well translated as now it is, bordereth neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostle's sense, nor the situation of the place. Secondly, psalm cv. 28 (from the Great Bible), ‘They were not obedient;’ the original being, ‘They were not disobedient.’ Thirdly, psalm cvi. 30 (also from the Great Bible), ‘Then stood up Phinees and prayed,’ the Hebrew hath, ‘executed judgment.’

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive: Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah... Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.

[DOC]

The slave-owning, miracle-disbelieving Jefferson, you mean?

Oh, yes, and I assume you believe blacks would be so much better off today if Mr. "Declaration of Independence" never lived? But we've already been through all this in the following thread so no sense doing it again:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2351125#post2351125

[DOC]

Indeed:



Also from the same source:

So what about the other 9 translations that use "servant", what's there reason for doing so.

[BobTheDonkey]

So what about the other 9 translations that use "servant", what's there reason for doing so.

Same as King James'?

And "Jefferson made the world better for slaves" is not a valid rebuttal. The Declaration of Independence holds no legal power whatsoever, and slaves were accorded no legal rights by the Constitution (weren't considered citizens, same as women). So...really...it wasn't Jefferson that had anything to do with the rights that minorities have today.

[Hokulele]

So what about the other 9 translations that use "servant", what's there reason for doing so.


Much like the KJV, they wanted to whitewash Jesus' acceptance of slavery.

[DOC]

The mistranslation of doulos (δοῦλος) started with the King James translation.



From here: http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2007/12/slaves-or-servants-pt-1.html

Also from there:



See also:


*master

Also:




And lastly: http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/NRB200928

You brought in this quote:

In this sermon, he raised an interesting point. He claims that English translations of the New Testament, beginning with the 1560 Geneva Bible, water down the Greek term "doulos" with translations such as "servant" or "bondservant." He says that there are other Greek words for these two latter terms, but that "doulos," when it refers to persons, always and everywhere means, and only means, "slave."
http://www.puritanboard.com/f128/dou...stament-44214/

The bolded part above doesn't make sense because doulos can also mean servant. And and a servant refers to a person.

And your website said this:

"Apparently, starting with John Knox and his folks, it was considered too upsetting or too frank, or whatever, to refer to Christians as slaves. Yet, MacArthur says that this is exactly what the New Testament is calling us - and that this is especially crucial, as a contrast, when Jesus (and other parts of the NT) begins to refer to Christians as "sons". In other words, it is necessary to translate "doulos" correctly as "slave" in order to highlight the dramatic transformation of Christians from "slaves" to "sons."

"If" the above is true, and what Joobz says is true, then Jesus supports the beating of Christians. So somebody is wrong, or they are both wrong, but both can't be right unless Jesus was preaching the beating of Christians which doesn't make sense.

[DOC]

Much like the KJV, they wanted to whitewash Jesus' acceptance of slavery.But the above post says the NT was calling Christians slaves. So then Jesus was accepting Christians if what you say is true and there is nothing wrong with Jesus accepting Christians.

ETA This is where some of the above arguments lead.

[Hokulele]

But the above post says the NT was calling Christians slaves. So then Jesus was accepting Christians if what you say is true and there is nothing wrong with Jesus accepting Christians.

ETA This is where some of the above arguments lead.


Metaphor.









You.

[joobz]

"If" the above is true, and what Joobz says is true, then Jesus supports the beating of Christians.
Yup. that's about right.
Jesus clearly says that only though him can you obtain heaven. If you aren't a good christian, you go to hell. So, yes. Jesus condones beating christians. He just call them not "true" christians.

So somebody is wrong, or they are both wrong, but both can't be right unless Jesus was preaching the beating of Christians which doesn't make sense.
You said it, not me.

[DOC]

Yup. that's about right.
Jesus clearly says that only though him can you obtain heaven. If you aren't a good christian, you go to hell. So, yes. Jesus condones beating christians. He just call them not "true" christians.Actually Jesus didn't say if you aren't a good Christian, you will go to hell, he said if you hear the gospel and don't believe you will be damned.

ETA: But the bible also says God is perfect and just. So the logical conclusion of that is that God will give a perfect and just judgement to all.

[joobz]

Actually Jesus didn't say if you aren't a good Christian, you will go to hell, he said if you hear the gospel and don't believe you will be damned.
that's much better.:rolleyes:

But considering that he also condoned the beating of slaves, I don't put much stock into what the bible claims he said.

[paximperium]

Actually Jesus didn't say if you aren't a good Christian, you will go to hell, he said if you hear the gospel and don't believe you will be damned.

So if you never hear the gospel, you'll still go to heaven?

Well then DOC, for everyone and especially every child that you preach to who don't believe you(and frankly, I doubt many are stupid enough to actually believe your nonsense), you damn them to hell. Using DOC logic, missionaries are probably some of the most evil beings around.

[joobz]

ETA: But the bible also says God is perfect and just. So the logical conclusion of that is that God will give a perfect and just judgement to all.
So you believe beating slaves is kind and just?

[joobz]

So if you never hear the gospel, you'll still go to heaven?
No. It's clear they are still punished. That's the moral faithful servant.

"That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."

By spreading the word, DOC simply increases the severity of the punishment they'll receive from the "kind and just" god.

[Ichneumonwasp]

So what about the other 9 translations that use "servant", what's there reason for doing so.


We've already been through this repeatedly. Servant was the role the person played -- meaning that that person served another. Today, servant refers to a particular type of person playing a role as a servant within an entirely different economic structure than was the case in the Roman Empire (today a servant is a waged money earner, but capitalism did not exist in the Roman Empire; the economic structure was agrarian and depended upon slave labor). At that time, people who played the role of servant were slaves. There may have been exceptions, but the New Testament does not refer to any of those exceptions if they even existed (and I am not referring here to the very well known practices whereby slaves could earn money -- as they could in Virginia before the practice of slavery changed in the U.S. -- on their own by hiring themselves out for labor outside of the home in which they primarily toiled).

Slavery at that time was different from what it was in the deep South of the U.S., but it was still slavery.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but by persisting in this line of argument you are making an absolute, utter, and complete fool of yourself.

I'm sorry again, but with all the information you have been given I find that I must return to the same question: are you ignorant, lying, ideologically blind, or simply too stupid to understand what others are telling you?

[bookitty]

This is known as the "Moral Argument" for God's existence. Since so many people have the feeling that such things as the Holocaust or slavery are wrong, then where did that feeling come from. The argument is that it must have come from an absolute Moral Law giver who is God...<snip>.

I find it highly amusing that someone is using the old "No God, no morals!" arguement in this thread. The argument supposes that without a higher moral authority one has nothing to compare one's moral stance against.

But this is a thread to discuss whether or not God condones slavery. If that question can even be raised, then this God is a very lame moral absolute.

[AdinDraco]

We've already been through this repeatedly. Servant was the role the person played -- meaning that that person served another. Today, servant refers to a particular type of person playing a role as a servant within an entirely different economic structure than was the case in the Roman Empire (today a servant is a waged money earner, but capitalism did not exist in the Roman Empire; the economic structure was agrarian and depended upon slave labor). At that time, people who played the role of servant were slaves. There may have been exceptions, but the New Testament does not refer to any of those exceptions if they even existed (and I am not referring here to the very well known practices whereby slaves could earn money -- as they could in Virginia before the practice of slavery changed in the U.S. -- on their own by hiring themselves out for labor outside of the home in which they primarily toiled).

Slavery at that time was different from what it was in the deep South of the U.S., but it was still slavery.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but by persisting in this line of argument you are making an absolute, utter, and complete fool of yourself.

I'm sorry again, but with all the information you have been given I find that I must return to the same question: are you ignorant, lying, ideologically blind, or simply too stupid to understand what others are telling you?

Seconded. Please stop arguing that the translations say "servant", it doesn't help the argument. These were still "servants" that were owned, inherited, tricked into life-long "servitude" by marrying them off and keeping the wife, selling your daughter, beating your "servants" with a rod and long as they take more than a day to die, you're ok.... I have heard the point that these "servants" may have been individually extremely well treated, never abused, housed and fed and allowed wives and children, BUT they were still property and OWNED by another human being.

I can call my wife by many names - partner, better-half, my woman (:p), soul mate, the one, etc etc - but she is still a wife by definition of what she is/does and the legal recognition of it.

[HeyLeroy]

So what about the other 9 translations that use "servant", what's there reason for doing so.

First and foremost, you're asking the wrong guy.

I have no idea what the motivations were that led the authors of those books to translate their particular versions as they did. I haven't studied them at length, so I have no idea which versions they used.

Could they have used KJV as their basis? Could they have used the Codex Sinaiticus? one (or more) of the many various previous Latin translations? The Church of England's Great Bible? The Bishops' Bible? Some combination of any of the above?

Answering that question would require me to speculate. All that would do would be to add another layer of speculation to the interpretation of what is supposed to be GOD'S INSPIRED WORD.

It would certainly be interesting to see how the CoE's Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible translated the word. As well as some of the Latin versions. Maybe I'll set my mad google-fu skillz onto that topic some time soon.

See, even an atheist can have an interest in understanding the bible. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49398)

You brought in this quote:

In this sermon, he raised an interesting point. He claims that English translations of the New Testament, beginning with the 1560 Geneva Bible, water down the Greek term "doulos" with translations such as "servant" or "bondservant." He says that there are other Greek words for these two latter terms, but that "doulos," when it refers to persons, always and everywhere means, and only means, "slave."
http://www.puritanboard.com/f128/dou...stament-44214/

The bolded part above doesn't make sense because doulos can also mean servant. And and a servant refers to a person.

You have provided one source for your assertion that doulos can mean something other than slave; there's been much more evidence presented here that the primary, long-accepted translation of the word doulos is slave.

Could you please corroborate your one source?

And your website said this:

For the record, that is not my website. I do not have anything to do with any website other than my contributions to forums and social-networking sites. I don't even blog.

Carry on:

"Apparently, starting with John Knox and his folks, it was considered too upsetting or too frank, or whatever, to refer to Christians as slaves. Yet, MacArthur says that this is exactly what the New Testament is calling us - and that this is especially crucial, as a contrast, when Jesus (and other parts of the NT) begins to refer to Christians as "sons". In other words, it is necessary to translate "doulos" correctly as "slave" in order to highlight the dramatic transformation of Christians from "slaves" to "sons."

"If" the above is true, and what Joobz says is true, then Jesus supports the beating of Christians. So somebody is wrong, or they are both wrong, but both can't be right unless Jesus was preaching the beating of Christians which doesn't make sense.

*sigh*

The message of the parable is Jesus telling his disciples that all of humanity is God's slaves and alluding to the various levels of punishment for individuals upon His return, to be meted out according to our acceptance (or even knowledge of) Christianity.

[pakeha]

Oh, yes, and I assume you believe blacks would be so much better off today if Mr. "Declaration of Independence" never lived? But we've already been through all this in the following thread so no sense doing it again:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2351125#post2351125

Yet another example of how DOC applies logic.
This one's a "Strawman"- setting up a false target to argue whilst ignoring the original subject.

[zooterkin]

The slave-owning, miracle-disbelieving Jefferson, you mean?

Oh, yes, and I assume you believe blacks would be so much better off today if Mr. "Declaration of Independence" never lived?

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you would assume such a thing, since you seem to specialise in believing things despite there being no evidence for them whatsoever.

Do you disagree that Jefferson owned slaves, and that he did not believe in the supernatural parts of the bible story?

[DOC]

You have provided one source for your assertion that doulos can mean something other than slave; there's been much more evidence presented here that the primary, long-accepted translation of the word doulos is slave.

Could you please corroborate your one source?Doulos in addition to slave and servant can mean bond servant:

Unlike the modern concept of slavery there were situations in that era where a slave truely loved his position, and his master, and did not want to be a free man. And who can blame him since I've already shown in that primitive era many slaves were actually better off then the free poor, especially if they had a good master.

Some of the following is from the site entitled "Bondservant"

Exodus 21:5-6 ESV
But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

The site below says when his ear is bored a gold earring is placed in it to signify the person's position.

The above situation is a bond servant (doulos) where, as in this instance, the slave willfully chooses his position over being free.

The idea of a voluntary servant is more of a Jewish concept as we will see later on, so the Greek is less precise in definition. This is why in the King James Version (KJV) usually translates to the word of ’servant’.

http://bondservant.wordpress.com/a-bondservant/

Also, the following article entitled "Doulos - a Definition" supports the above:

"Doulos is a Greek word that means bond-servant. In the New Testament times it was not uncommon for a freed slave to voluntarily re-enter servitude to a master whom he loved. This servitude was called bond-service. Only a freed slave could be a bond-servant, and once he had chosen to become one, he could never be freed again. Neither could he be bought or sold, and he served his chosen master until death. When a man chose bond-service, he was taken to the front entrance of the house, and his right ear was laid against the door post. A nail was driven through his ear, and a golden earring was placed in it. This golden earring was a symbol to all of the servant’s choice and of his immunity to being made merchandise. Paul and Peter spoke of themselves as being bond-servants to Christ. There is a service whose true name is freedom."

"Kemper Crabb’s definition of Doulos has greatly impacted my life and is part of the inspiration behind this website."

http://doulosvigil.com/doulos-a-definition/

[joobz]

Doulos in addition to slave and servant can mean bond servant:

Unlike the modern concept of slavery there were situations in that era where a slave truely loved his position, and his master, and did not want to be a free man. And who can blame him since I've already shown in that primitive era many slaves were actually better off then the free poor, especially if they had a good master.
Um.... read the section carefully.

Exodus 21:5-6 ESV
But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
The line right before that says:
"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. "

So, the real lesson here, is that if a master wanted to entrap a person onto slavery. All he needs to do is let the slave have a wife and kids. Since the biblical law says that those kids and wife wouldn't be free to go.

THat's quite horrible DOC.


The site below says when his ear is bored a gold earring is placed in it to signify the person's position.

The above situation is a bond servant (doulos) where, as in this instance, the slave willfully chooses his position over being free.
Yeah, the choice is:
Go free and leave your wife and kids
or
Stay a slave with your family.

Bondservants are slaves and it is just as immoral.

Seriously, DOC, you are the more you post here defending slavery, the more amoral you demonstrate the bible to be.

[RoboTimbo]

Doulos in addition to slave and servant can mean bond servant:

DOC, would you answer regarding the morality of the beating the girl in pax's posted picture took, please?

Additionally, would you identify her as a slave or as a bondservant?

[joobz]

DOC, would you answer regarding the morality of the beating the girl in pax's posted picture took, please?

Additionally, would you identify her as a slave or as a bondservant?Well, to be fair, DOC would need to know if she knowingly or unkowningly broke a rule.

[RoboTimbo]

Well, to be fair, DOC would need to know if she knowingly or unkowningly broke a rule.

That's fair. Also:

DOC, do you think the girl fits the picture fits the definition of doulos?

[pakeha]

Um.... read the section carefully.


The line right before that says:
"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. "

So, the real lesson here, is that if a master wanted to entrap a person onto slavery. All he needs to do is let the slave have a wife and kids. Since the biblical law says that those kids and wife wouldn't be free to go.

THat's quite horrible DOC.



Yeah, the choice is:
Go free and leave your wife and kids
or
Stay a slave with your family.

Bondservants are slaves and it is just as immoral.

Seriously, DOC, you are the more you post here defending slavery, the more amoral you demonstrate the bible to be.

You beat me to it, joobz.
Probably just as well.
Anyway.
Has DOC deliberately misquoted Scripture in this exchange, or simply misunderstood it?

[paximperium]

You beat me to it, joobz.
Probably just as well.
Anyway.
Has DOC deliberately misquoted Scripture in this exchange, or simply misunderstood it?
The way that he consistently "accidentally" leaves out certain parts of scripture or chooses the translations with the "best" words implies something.

DOC is way more powerful than his god. DOC gets to make up whatever god said...its as if DOC made up this version of god.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Doulos in addition to slave and servant can mean bond servant:

Unlike the modern concept of slavery there were situations in that era where a slave truely loved his position, and his master, and did not want to be a free man. And who can blame him since I've already shown in that primitive era many slaves were actually better off then the free poor, especially if they had a good master.

Some of the following is from the site entitled "Bondservant"

Exodus 21:5-6 ESV
But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

The site below says when his ear is bored a gold earring is placed in it to signify the person's position.

The above situation is a bond servant (doulos) where, as in this instance, the slave willfully chooses his position over being free.



http://bondservant.wordpress.com/a-bondservant/

Also, the following article entitled "Doulos - a Definition" supports the above:

"Doulos is a Greek word that means bond-servant. In the New Testament times it was not uncommon for a freed slave to voluntarily re-enter servitude to a master whom he loved. This servitude was called bond-service. Only a freed slave could be a bond-servant, and once he had chosen to become one, he could never be freed again. Neither could he be bought or sold, and he served his chosen master until death. When a man chose bond-service, he was taken to the front entrance of the house, and his right ear was laid against the door post. A nail was driven through his ear, and a golden earring was placed in it. This golden earring was a symbol to all of the servant’s choice and of his immunity to being made merchandise. Paul and Peter spoke of themselves as being bond-servants to Christ. There is a service whose true name is freedom."

"Kemper Crabb’s definition of Doulos has greatly impacted my life and is part of the inspiration behind this website."

http://doulosvigil.com/doulos-a-definition/



Yes, of course. Why do you bring it up, though, since this simply adds to Joobz's point?

Maybe I misunderstand, but didn't he introduce this issue because of the power differentials in that society and how the ancient world differed from the modern, so it is not clear what moral order should prevail.

Household life in the ancient world was based in power, not in economic arrangement. People were not paid for services within a household (though they could earn money outside the home). The paterfamilias held the power of life and death over his household, and from what I recall, this included bond-servants, debt-servants, and slaves (as well as his biological family).

The point still stands -- that word denoted what we would identify as a slave, whether or not the person entered into the relationship by means of being sold into it, by debt, by choice, etc. The doulos did not have power, was not free. Some could have higher standing within a household; and this was very important in that society where everyone was either a client or a patron (and often both at the same time to different groups of people).

Joobz's point was that Jesus seems to agree with the sort of power differential that was common in the ancient Roman world and which we find strange or wrong.

By trying to explain this away you continue to make a fool of yourself. You are approaching it from the wrong perspective. You can agree with that sort of social arrangement and say Jesus was correct in what he said; or you can interpret the passage metaphorically (especially since that is the way it was written in the first place). To say that he did not seem to condone that sort of social arrangement is simply incorrect.

[joobz]

Joobz's point was that Jesus seems to agree with the sort of power differential that was common in the ancient Roman world and which we find strange or wrong.
Exactly. But then DOC also made another mistake by bringing up the "moral proof of god" argument.

I wonder if he will be able to piece together why that was a mistake.

[DOC]

Um.... read the section carefully.


The line right before that says:
"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. "

So, the real lesson here, is that if a master wanted to entrap a person onto slavery. All he needs to do is let the slave have a wife and kids. Since the biblical law says that those kids and wife wouldn't be free to go.

THat's quite horrible DOC.



Yeah, the choice is:
Go free and leave your wife and kids
or
Stay a slave with your family.

Bondservants are slaves and it is just as immoral.

Seriously, DOC, you are the more you post here defending slavery, the more amoral you demonstrate the bible to be.

Exodus also says this:

Ex 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Ex 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

I'm now beginning to understand why Jesus didn't waste a lot of time trying to overhaul this deeply ingrained cultural and economic system with its rules and regulations. It would have diverted much of his time when his real focus was eternal matters and the big picture. And as I have said it probably would have done more harm than good at that time by upsetting the whole economic and cultural system. You have to feed a baby baby food before you can give him/her steak. Joobz, you wanted Jesus to continually feed this primitive pre industrial revolution culture steak which while noble is unrealistic. Look how much time and energy we are spending trying to change health care and we have TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, the internet etc. And we still can't do it. All Jesus had was his voice and a few apostles. Add to this the fact that he was living in a Roman occupied land where preaching about changing the economic system would have branded him a troublemaker (and an enemy of the empire) and could have easily cut short his real mission. Joobz, you want simple generalized answers to a complex cultural and economic issue and that is not anymore possible than simple answers to our current health care debate.

Jesus did the right thing by concentrating on the big picture which is why we are here 2000 years later talking about him... And Christianity eventually did play a big part in the downfall of slavery as I've already shown, but it took time -- just like the other ills of society which we are still working on will take time.

[Hokulele]

Ooooh, look at all of the unevidenced speculation. That is certainly convincing.

[zooterkin]

Exodus also says this:

Ex 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Ex 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.


So, you agree with the point joobz was making, as you've just quoted a couple of verses which back it up?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Exodus also says this:

Ex 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Ex 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

I'm now beginning to understand why Jesus didn't waste a lot of time trying to overhaul this deeply ingrained cultural and economic system with its rules and regulations. It would have diverted much of his time when his real focus was eternal matters and the big picture. And as I have said it probably would have done more harm than good at that time by upsetting the whole economic and cultural system. You have to feed a baby baby food before you can give him/her steak. Joobz, you wanted Jesus to continually feed this primitive pre industrial revolution culture steak which while noble is unrealistic. Look how much time and energy we are spending trying to change health care and we have TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, the internet etc. And we still can't do it. All Jesus had was his voice and a few apostles. Add to this the fact that he was living in a Roman occupied land where preaching about changing the economic system would have branded him a troublemaker (and an enemy of the empire) and could have easily cut short his real mission. Joobz, you want simple generalized answers to a complex cultural and economic issue and that is not anymore possible than simple answers to our current health care debate.

Jesus did the right thing by concentrating on the big picture which is why we are here 2000 years later talking about him... And Christianity eventually did play a big part in the downfall of slavery as I've already shown, but it took time -- just like the other ills of society which we are still working on will take time.


Concession noted. Since you agree that Jesus did not fight against slavery, why are you contributing to this thread? You've just admitted that Joobz was right, so may we move on now?

[joobz]

I'm now beginning to understand why Jesus didn't waste a lot of time trying to overhaul this deeply ingrained cultural and economic system with its rules and regulations.
So:
1. YOu admit that Jesus condoned slavery
2. You admit that Jesus condoned beating of slaves.
3. you admit that "IF" jesus was against slavery, he was too powerless to fight against it and didn't feel like it was worth the fight.


So, now, one must ask:
Why would you claim Jesus/God is a source of morality? Obviously he either is immoral (by modern standards) or lacks the convictions of his morals.

ETA:
Jesus did the right thing by concentrating on the big picture which is why we are here 2000 years later talking about him... And Christianity eventually did play a big part in the downfall of slavery as I've already shown, but it took time -- just like the other ills of society which we are still working on will take time.

DOC, if jesus' "big picture" didn't include the enslavement of others as a major issue, you only further prove my point. That jesus was immoral.

[Hokulele]

And he obviously is not omnipotent.

[Alice Shortcake]

I get the impression that not only is Kurious Kathy not familiar with the Bible, she doesn't WANT to examine it too closely for fear of having her comforting delusions about Christianity shattered.

[DOC]

Exodus also says this:

Ex 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Ex 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

I'm now beginning to understand why Jesus didn't waste a lot of time trying to overhaul this deeply ingrained cultural and economic system with its rules and regulations. It would have diverted much of his time when his real focus was eternal matters and the big picture. And as I have said it probably would have done more harm than good at that time by upsetting the whole economic and cultural system. You have to feed a baby baby food before you can give him/her steak. Joobz, you wanted Jesus to continually feed this primitive pre industrial revolution culture steak which while noble is unrealistic. Look how much time and energy we are spending trying to change health care and we have TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, the internet etc. And we still can't do it. All Jesus had was his voice and a few apostles. Add to this the fact that he was living in a Roman occupied land where preaching about changing the economic system would have branded him a troublemaker (and an enemy of the empire) and could have easily cut short his real mission. Joobz, you want simple generalized answers to a complex cultural and economic issue and that is not anymore possible than simple answers to our current health care debate.

Jesus did the right thing by concentrating on the big picture which is why we are here 2000 years later talking about him... And Christianity eventually did play a big part in the downfall of slavery as I've already shown, but it took time -- just like the other ills of society which we are still working on will take time.

Concession noted. Since you agree that Jesus did not fight against slavery, why are you contributing to this thread? You've just admitted that Joobz was right, so may we move on now?

When Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" he was fighting against slavery. He also said "I have come to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and liberty to those that are bruised".
___

Jesus also never said a word against the brutality of the Roman aggression that caused his country to be taken over by the Roman military. Does that mean he supported it. Jesus also never said it was wrong to crucify a man for stealing. The man on the cross next to him was a thief. Jesus could have yelled out it is wrong to crucify a man for stealing- he never did. Jesus also never said it was wrong to whip, mock, put a crown of thorns on me, make me carry my own cross, and crucify me when the Pontius Pilate said he could find no fault with me. He could have yelled that out from the cross.

He also never said a word about trespassing, assault and battery, treason, vandalism, profanity, bullying, inhumane treatment to animals. Does that mean he supported those things?

If some people don't want to believe in Christianity because of the servant/slavery issue that is your right. But there is absolutely no doubt in by mind that the institution of slavery ended sooner because Jesus Christ came to this planet. If some people don't agree with me so be it.

[joobz]

When Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" he was fighting against slavery. He also said "I have come to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and liberty to those that are bruised".
"That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. "
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/c89b5497e5.jpg (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/c89b5497e5.jpg)

Do unto others, eh?


Jesus also never said a word against the brutality of the Roman aggression that caused his country to be taken over by the Roman military.
But jesus did say that it is acceptable to beat slaves.

Don't you feel ashamed for defending such behavior?

[AdinDraco]

Exodus also says this:

Ex 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Ex 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.



Dude, read the rest! Non-hebrew slaves got out, what about the non-hebrew slaves? If he came in with wife, he's fine - but if he gets the wife while a slave, then she (and the kids) belong to the master - which leads to the whole loophole about getting to keep your slave by keeping the family. Aah, the old, old tactic of ignoring the bad bits and only paying attention to the "good" bits. Yeah, Jesus supposedly said the golden rule (which other religions have said better) but he also did and said a crapload of stupid, inconsisent and evil things.

[Ichneumonwasp]

When Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" he was fighting against slavery. He also said "I have come to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and liberty to those that are bruised".

Um, no. Please provide the logical links in this argument because they are missing from your short little precise.

Those are statements, not "fighting against slavery". That is also your interpretation of what the words mean. Jesus did not say that he came to heal the brokenhearted with political maneuvers in this world. In fact, he seemed to say quite the opposite.
___

Jesus also never said a word against the brutality of the Roman aggression that caused his country to be taken over by the Roman military. Does that mean he supported it. Jesus also never said it was wrong to crucify a man for stealing. The man on the cross next to him was a thief. Jesus could have yelled out it is wrong to crucify a man for stealing- he never did. Jesus also never said it was wrong to whip, mock, put a crown of thorns on me, make me carry my own cross, and crucify me when the Pontius Pilate said he could find no fault with me. He could have yelled that out from the cross.

Um, I'm having trouble following the incredible leap of I'm not sure what to call it. I don't dare call it a leap of logic in that little screed because I can't find any. The issue here is that you are trying to argue against a position that Joobz laid out; and your arguments make no sense. You could easily counter him with two simple arguments that you have already been told, but instead you say things like the above -- non-sequiturs having nothing whatever to do with anyone's positions here.

He also never said a word about trespassing, assault and battery, treason, vandalism, profanity, bullying, inhumane treatment to animals. Does that mean he supported those things?

If some people don't want to believe in Christianity because of the servant/slavery issue that is your right. But there is absolutely no doubt in by mind that the institution of slavery ended sooner because Jesus Christ came to this planet. If some people don't agree with me so be it.

Are you under the mistaken notion that someone has argued that because Jesus did not fight against slavery that we think he necessarily supported it? I never made such an argument. Joobz never made such an argument. What in the world ever possessed you to create this field of straw.

Joobz argument, which you fully seemed to support in your earlier post, unless you don't even understand what you wrote yourself was that there are statements in the gospels that were attributed to Jesus and that these statements implu support for the Roman institutions.

If you want to argue against him then you need to address the issue at hand. Wafting off into never-never-land as you have done in the above post only deepens the hole of shame you are actively digging.

[joobz]

You could easily counter him with two simple arguments that you have already been told,
DOC has tried to dismiss it as mere metaphor, but I that still fails to address the central point. You don't explain our relationship to god as bondservants, unless you view such slavery as a morally acceptable.

Even in terms of metaphor, it exposes a critical failing in Jesus' teachings.

[amb]

Not so surprising. Many atheists will tell you that actually reading the bible properly is what started their deconversion. Some of my favourite atheists actively recommand bible studies and comparitive religious studies because how many theists actually know anything about their bible beyond the cute stories told to them in school/church...they all know Noah saved the animals, 2 by 2, but do they know that Noah got drunk, cursed one of his relatives and that this passage is used to justify racism because the cursed lineage supposedly has dark skin? I sat down one summer xmas holidays, started at the beginning of the bible, and was profoundly disgusted with what I read. (sorry, rant, rant)

''Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever devised.''

Issac Asimov.

[DOC]

When Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" he was fighting against slavery. He also said "I have come to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and liberty to those that are bruised".
___


"That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. "

I notice you rarely if ever put which translation of the bible it is when you are talking about slavery. Could it be because 10 translations don't use the word slave.

[RoboTimbo]

___




I notice you rarely if ever put which translation of the bible it is when you are talking about slavery. Could it be because 10 translations don't use the word slave.

Which ones don't use the word "beat"?

[AdinDraco]

___




I notice you rarely if ever put which translation of the bible it is when you are talking about slavery. Could it be because 10 translations don't use the word slave.

You keep saying this, ignoring the fact that even if true it doesn't help. Plenty of people are aguing the translation thing, which is way above my level, but again it doesn't negate the problem of the "servants" being bought, sold, inherited, beaten and tricked into lifelong servitude by giving the Hebrew "servants" wives and kids and then keeping them (no loophole needed with the non-Hebrew).

[joobz]

I notice you rarely if ever put which translation of the bible it is when you are talking about slavery. Could it be because 10 translations don't use the word slave.
So, the only problem is that it says slave. Your completely ok with beating of bond servants.

Nice.

[zooterkin]

When Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" he was fighting against slavery.

Can you give the chapter and verse for this quote?

[DOC]

When Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" he was fighting against slavery. He also said "I have come to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and liberty to those that are bruised".


Um, no. Please provide the logical links in this argument because they are missing from your short little precise.

It would be is impossible for slavery to exist if everyone obeyed Jesus' teaching in Luke 6:31 - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Slave owners would not want others to make them slaves so if they followed Jesus' teaching slavery would end.

So when people say Jesus condones slavery they are wrong and Jesus' own words are the evidence. It's the law of non-contradiction. A world of slavery and a world that follows the teaching "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can not exist together. It takes a minute to logically think it through but when you do it is obvious that Jesus does not support slavery and his own teachings are the evidence.


Those are statements, not "fighting against slavery". That is also your interpretation of what the words mean.

It has nothing to do with interpretation, it has to do with logic. Statements infer things. When I say I don't like to exercise, that infers I don't like to do jumping jacks. When I say I don't like racists, that infers I would not join the Ku Klux Klan. When Jesus teaches "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", that infers he is teaching against slavery because normal people do not want others to make them slaves. It is very obvious when you think about it.


Jesus did not say that he came to heal the brokenhearted with political maneuvers in this world. In fact, he seemed to say quite the opposite.

I don't know what you're talking about with the "political maneuvers" thing...

Jesus strongly implied he was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, which was that one would heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and proclaim liberty to those that are bruised.

[Ichneumonwasp]

DOC has tried to dismiss it as mere metaphor, but I that still fails to address the central point. You don't explain our relationship to god as bondservants, unless you view such slavery as a morally acceptable.

Even in terms of metaphor, it exposes a critical failing in Jesus' teachings.


You can always call it such, but it was the central message nonetheless. The central message of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition is complete, unfailing belief in God. That was the point of the parable and expressly the point of one of the "two commandments".

We view slavery as morally repugnant because there is no inherent difference between humans such that one should be superior to another. The same cannot be said about creator-created.

If you believe in the existence of God as creator, then there is no moral issue with the parable or the thoughts expressed in it.

[Ichneumonwasp]

It would be is impossible for slavery to exist if everyone obeyed Jesus' teaching of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Slave owners would not want others to make them slaves so if they followed Jesus' teaching slavery would end.

So when people say Jesus condones slavery they are wrong and Jesus' own words are the evidence. It's the law of non-contradiction. A world of slavery and a world that follows the teaching "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can not exist together. It take a few seconds to logically think it through but when you do it is obvious that Jesus does not support slavery and his own teachings are the evidence.

Sorry, but no, and you have provided the evidence yourself as to why this is not the case, though you do not seem to see it. "Do unto others", as a categorical imperative (actually it was a suggestion rather than imperative in Jewish tradition, and Jesus did not invent it -- he was paraphrasing Leviticus), is void of content. That content can take many different forms, one of which is that people can decide that they are willing to risk servitude themselves if they view service as worthwhile for the society at large.

While there were rare exceptions, people in the Greco-Roman world did not try to overturn the institution of slavery because they viewed is as necessary for the system; the moralists typically defended the practice, and this includes Aristotle. In such a situation, while no one particularly wanted to be on the short end of the stick and end up a slave, it does not mean that "do unto others", if applied, would prevent the institution.

Bond-servitude demonstrates that some chose to remain slaves even after manumission. There may even have been others who viewed debt-slavery as "paying off debt", and so "treating others as I would want to be treated". If one chooses a course of action consciously, that is generally considered to constitute "the way I want to be treated".


It has nothing to do with interpretation, it has to do with logic. Statements infer things. When I say I don't like to exercise. That infers I don't like to do jumping jacks. When I say I don't like racists, that infers I would not join the Ku Klux Klan. When Jesus teaches "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", that infers he is teaching against slavery because normal people do not want others to make them slaves. It is very obvious when you think about it.

Statements imply; they do not infer. People infer what a statement might imply.

Please do not confuse implication with logic. Logic relies on precise definitions. I think the word you want is not "logic" but "reasoning". Reasoning, or rationality, is a looser word that covers many forms of thought but which lacks the rigor of logic.

As above, "do unto others" does not necessarily imply that he taught against slavery. He might have; he might not have. But arguing that doulos covers the institution of bond-servitude doesn't help; nor do any of the other statements.

The problem I have here is not whether he did or did not -- I have no way of knowing -- but with your arguments, which are poor. If you want an argument for Jesus likely arguing against slavery, then you would do better to refer to John Dominic Crossan who thinks that Jesus' political message concerned the over-throwing of Roman and Jewish cultural institutions either in this world or as a part of the coming Kingdom of God (the first will be last, the last will be first; mother will fight against daughter, son against father; etc.).

"Do unto others" or "treat your neighbor as yourself" is devoid of content, so it cannot serve the purpose "logically" that you want it to serve. The first problem is that we don't know what people in the ancient world considered proper treatment of themselves (and what they were willing to put up with); and the second is that "neighbor" or "other" remains undefined. Since this word was often defined to mean "member of my in-group" it allows all sorts of behaviors against any non-member.

There is a reason why Kant finally rejected the categorical imperative in favor of the "End's principle". If we all agree ahead of time that everyone should be treated as an "ends" and not a mere means to an end, then slavery becomes impossible. Unfortunately, so does capitalism.


Jesus strongly implied he was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, which was that one would heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and proclaim liberty to the captives. I don't know where you came up with the "political maneuvers" thing.

Giving succor to "captives" is typically a political statement. Those words are ambiguous since the timing and expression are not defined. Jesus could mean that he will heal the brokenhearted and deliver the captives as Messiah in the here and now. Or he could mean that he will do so at some later time (Paul believed that Jesus was the Messiah because God had chosen him, as demonstrated in the resurrection), in either a political -- here on earth with a new Kingdom -- or a spiritual way.

As the words are typically read today, the political message is not considered viable; meaning he did not intend to succor the suffering, ending slavery or whatever at that time. As such, those words cannot be taken to mean that he "fought against slavery".

Look, you can stay on solid ground by arguing what the parable is actually about -- that we should be bond-servants to God. It was offered in reply to Peter's question "is this teaching for us or for all?" It didn't concern the actual beating of slaves or condoning of beating of slaves.

It does, however, raise a sticky issue over the morality of divine punishment, especially "Hell".

I'm trying to tell you that you are arguing it in the wrong way, and that your arguments are counter-productive. Trying to say that doulos also means "bond-servant" is no help since a bond-servant was still a slave, as were debt-slaves and slaves taken in war. That's who filled the role of servant in that society.

I'm afraid that the real issue with which you must deal is whether or not Hell is moral.

[CriticalThanking]

I have stayed out of these threads as there are so many who have done a fantastic job exposing DOC's faulty logic, falsehoods, and intellectual dishonesty. I just can't let some of this go.

So DOC believes Jesus was too powerless to do anything about slavery other than hint about "do unto others". Yet DOC also wants to trumpet Christians as a primary reason US slavery was abolished. Sounds like latter day Christians have more guts than DOC's Jesus. "Sorry, I'm too busy getting you to worship me and save your eternal soul than to take on any tough problems. I won't risk getting stepped upon by the Romans until I think it has a chance of convincing people I am god."

Why aren't Christians supposed to follow his example and focus on eternal life instead of current social problems. Oh, wait - Christians can focus on them as long as they aren't a "deeply ingrained cultural and economic system with [...] rules and regulations." So Christians should not be weighing in on health care? Heck if Jesus couldn't do it, why should Christians try?

I find DOC's version of morality nauseating.

CT

[joobz]

You can always call it such, but it was the central message nonetheless. The central message of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition is complete, unfailing belief in God. That was the point of the parable and expressly the point of one of the "two commandments".

We view slavery as morally repugnant because there is no inherent difference between humans such that one should be superior to another. The same cannot be said about creator-created.

If you believe in the existence of God as creator, then there is no moral issue with the parable or the thoughts expressed in it.
Certainly. But in nowhere was there a clear delineation of "It's ok for god to treat you all as slaves, but not ok for you to treat each other as slaves"

Further, it's a very strange thing to do. To explain our relationship with god using an institution that the person doesn't think is morally acceptable (as practiced in the example).

For instance, you could easily retell the parable of the servant using a more modern Pimp/prostitute analogy. BUt wouldn't such an analogy ring hollow? Especially coming from a person who supposedly is the most moral person to ever have lived?

[pakeha]

...But there is absolutely no doubt in by mind that the institution of slavery ended sooner because Jesus Christ came to this planet. If some people don't agree with me so be it.


Hi, DOC.
Somehow I don't think that censoring the word 'slave', used freely in the OT, and replacing it with 'bondservant' (siervo, in Spanish) in the NT really made a difference in the institution of slavery.

What made a difference was having lawmakers change the laws.
I've learnt a lot with this thread, from 'blackbirding', to Napoleon's re-institution of slavery in 1802, to the slavery of gypsies in Rumania and much more.
I think what possibly disgusted me the most was that the ideal relation between god and believer, as defined by Jesus himself, is that of master and slave and that god will punish a sinner as a master punishes a slave.

[Elizabeth I]

It has nothing to do with interpretation, it has to do with logic. Statements infer things. When I say I don't like to exercise, that infers I don't like to do jumping jacks. When I say I don't like racists, that infers I would not join the Ku Klux Klan. When Jesus teaches "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", that infers he is teaching against slavery because normal people do not want others to make them slaves. It is very obvious when you think about it.

Statements imply; they do not infer. People infer what a statement might imply.

Makes me wonder why someone who doesn't seem to understand the difference between two simple, rather common words in what is presumably his native language thinks himself qualified to determine the correct translation of doulos.

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)

If some people don't want to believe in Christianity because of the servant/slavery issue that is your right. But there is absolutely no doubt in by mind that the institution of slavery ended sooner because Jesus Christ came to this planet. If some people don't agree with me so be it.

For the record, I don't believe in Christianity because I've never seen any evidence for the supernatural.

[Hokulele]

It would be is impossible for slavery to exist if everyone obeyed Jesus' teaching in Luke 6:31 - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Slave owners would not want others to make them slaves so if they followed Jesus' teaching slavery would end.

So when people say Jesus condones slavery they are wrong and Jesus' own words are the evidence. It's the law of non-contradiction. A world of slavery and a world that follows the teaching "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can not exist together. It takes a minute to logically think it through but when you do it is obvious that Jesus does not support slavery and his own teachings are the evidence.


You could also use this command to argue against homophobia, misogyny, or any other bigotry. After all, who would want to be discriminated against? Men should stop claiming to be the moral head of the household, after all, they wouldn't want someone else forcing them into submission, no?

[DOC]

I think what possibly disgusted me the most was that the ideal relation between god and believer, as defined by Jesus himself, is that of master and slave and that god will punish a sinner as a master punishes a slave.

I don't agree it is the ideal relationship; the ideal relationship is for humans not to rebel against the few spiritual laws that Christ taught. And those spiritual laws, at least according to Billy Graham, are in effect for our own {and societies} long term best interest, and not to be cruel.

The fact that the bible says God will harshly punish sins such as the servant who beat several men and beat several woman just shows God is very serious and not flippant about universal spiritual laws. The servant was violating Jesus' teaching of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and thus he has to pay a price for his violation of God's law. And even if he was unaware of God's universal law, a lesser punishment will be given {probably as a lesson for the future}. If I am 3 years old, I might not know it is wrong to put my hand on a stove burner, but I could be punished by a burnt hand whether I know it or not.

But the verse in Luke 12: 47 doesn't just talk about punishment, it also talks about the great reward the servant will receive when he follows the few rules. The verse says the servant will be placed in charge of all that the master owns.

[RandFan]

And those spiritual laws, at least according to Billy Graham, are in effect for our own {and societies} long term best interest, and not to be cruel.America is one of the most, if not the most, religious of modern liberal nations yet we have some of the highest violent crime rates.

On the other hand:

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment (http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148)

Neither god nor "spiritual laws" are needed for good socieites.

That's a fact.

[RandFan]

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment (http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148)


Online Version. (http://books.google.com/books?id=mwmJ4FwuF2YC&dq=contentment+without+god&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=fHyzwxjrLF&sig=8hbr5O_0Rs_NdIs3-s1Ffo-nvKs&hl=en&ei=_82_SuugDI-gsgOR6_FP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

[joobz]

I don't agree it is the ideal relationship; the ideal relationship is for humans not to rebel against the few spiritual laws that Christ taught. And those spiritual laws, at least according to Billy Graham, are in effect for our own {and societies} long term best interest, and not to be cruel.
But this is false.

The bible's spirtual laws included:
Inequality of the sexes.
Slavery/Bond-servitutde.
Kingdoms.

The elimination of each of these elements have been halmarks of demonstrable improvements in society.

So, unless you believe the bible is wrong, you can't possibly claim that the biblical spiritual laws are what's best for soceity.

[tsig]

And he obviously is not omnipotent.

No, he was impotent.

It's true! I've had many tell me that Jesus was the most impotent figure in all history.

[amb]

I have stayed out of these threads as there are so many who have done a fantastic job exposing DOC's faulty logic, falsehoods, and intellectual dishonesty. I just can't let some of this go.

So DOC believes Jesus was too powerless to do anything about slavery other than hint about "do unto others". Yet DOC also wants to trumpet Christians as a primary reason US slavery was abolished. Sounds like latter day Christians have more guts than DOC's Jesus. "Sorry, I'm too busy getting you to worship me and save your eternal soul than to take on any tough problems. I won't risk getting stepped upon by the Romans until I think it has a chance of convincing people I am god."

Why aren't Christians supposed to follow his example and focus on eternal life instead of current social problems. Oh, wait - Christians can focus on them as long as they aren't a "deeply ingrained cultural and economic system with [...] rules and regulations." So Christians should not be weighing in on health care? Heck if Jesus couldn't do it, why should Christians try?

I find DOC's DOCson of morality nauseating.

CT

It's not just DOC's morality that sucks. It's the whole xtian establishments that smells to high heaven. Such hypocrites as church attendees are very hard to find. I've met one or two, they were Quakers.

[pakeha]

... And those spiritual laws, at least according to Billy Graham, are in effect for our own {and societies} long term best interest, and not to be cruel.

...If I am 3 years old, I might not know it is wrong to put my hand on a stove burner, but I could be punished by a burnt hand whether I know it or not. ...



A new source? Billy Graham? Interesting.

Since when are natural laws "punishment"?

[amb]

Next, when he comes back. He will quote Jimmy Swaggart, I promise. :D

[Belz...]

It would be is impossible for slavery to exist if everyone obeyed Jesus' teaching in Luke 6:31 - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Slave owners would not want others to make them slaves so if they followed Jesus' teaching slavery would end.

Well, in that case mister omnipotent god shouldn't contradict himself. You just prefer one passage over the other.

[HeyLeroy]

I found a different bible, with a completely different translation of the word doulos.

Here is Luke 12:35-47:


Wahchful Survnts

35 "Doan be nekkid an n de dark.36 Wahch 4 Boss Kitteh, so wen him gits hoem aftr weddng, u be redi let him in.37 If him git hoem and seez dat u wer wahchng, him giv u cheezburgrs. Srsly!38 Speshly if it be at naptiem, an u stil wahchng sted ov napen, Boss Kitteh rly liek u den."

39 "If u no wen cheezburglr coem, den ur cheezburgrs not git steelded.40 Dat meenz u shd luk 4 Jebus all de tiem an be redi 4 him shoh up."

Teh Bad Kitteh!

41 Peter ax, "Jebus, wtf? R u talking to lolcats or to all ppl?"

42 Jebus sed, "Boss cat givz deputeh kitteh cheezburgrs 2 shaer wit evrybody and goed away.43 "If him coem hoem an seed deputeh kitteh dun gud job, him rly happi.44 Den him sai 'DEPUTEH KITTEH GETS ALL MAH CHEEZBURGERS!'"

45 "But if deputeh kitteh sez 'Boss cat not heer, me eat all his cheezburgerz an not shaer,' and eated them, and then kitteh rollz all in catnip,46 "Boss cat goes 'SURPRIZ!!!!! IZ HOEM EARLY!!!! BAD KITTEH!!!!!11!! U GIT SKWRT BOTTEL!!!!'"

47 "Teh kitteh who noes not to eated all cheezburgerz and eated all cheezburgers git sprayd lots an lots wit skwrt bottel. Srsly!48 Kitteh who not noes not to eated all cheezburgers and eated all cheezburgers gits sprayd littel bit wit skwrt bottel. Kitteh who gots many cheezburgerz, gets axed lots, an from kitteh who gots much trusted, much more axed too, lol."

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Luke_12

[pakeha]

You can get away with posting that because you're a vegan cannibal, HeyLeroy.

[pakeha]

Next, when he comes back. He will quote Jimmy Swaggart, I promise. :D

I looked up the man.
Now that's a source worth quoting:
The maxim "Once burned, twice shy" apparently doesn't mean much to televangelist Jimmy Swaggart. Disgraced in 1988 after a liaison with a Louisiana call girl, Swaggart, 56, was stopped by police in Indio, Calif., two weeks ago for a traffic violation and found to be in the company of Rosemary Garcia, an admitted streetwalker. That latest foray prompted Swaggart to resign from his Baton Rouge-based ministry last Tuesday to seek "professional counseling and medical care." But the next day the preacher reversed the decision, explaining to his congregation that God told him to return to the pulpit. Swaggart announced to supporters that "the Lord told me it's flat none of your business" and that he didn't have to apologize for his conduct

From:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974120,00.html

[HeyLeroy]

You can get away with posting that because you're a vegan cannibal, HeyLeroy.

:D

[eccles]

50% of Americans believe the Sermon on the Mount was preached by Billy Graham

[amb]

Jokes aside, 40% of Americans believe in a literal creation 6000 years ago as is told in Genesis!

[Ladewig]

Jokes aside, 40% of Americans believe in a literal creation 6000 years ago as is told in Genesis!

We debated this figure back in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=144184). What is the source of your statistic?

[Ladewig]

I looked up the man.
Now that's a source worth quoting:


From:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974120,00.html

This topic deserves its own thread. All aboard the Schadenfreude Express.

[pakeha]

We debated this figure back in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=144184). What is the source of your statistic?

Thanks for posting up that thread, Ladewig.
Most interesting to see how polls can be number-crunched before your very eyes.

[Belz...]

Jokes aside, 40% of Americans believe in a literal creation 6000 years ago as is told in Genesis!

Really ?

[paximperium]

Really ?http://c2.api.ning.com/files/Xn6RV5Y50pbFK-4nfM7GdDho7NF3Lm7FDmT9YQonKh4_/orly.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/orly/llavespada/orly/ORLY_Mexican.jpghttp://media.photobucket.com/image/orly/llavespada/orly/ORLY_Mexican.jpg

[amb]

We debated this figure back in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=144184). What is the source of your statistic?

Richard Dawkins book The Greatest Show On Earth.

[amb]

Even if the figure is 10% it's still too high. For the love of Zoroaster, we are in the 21st century. Darwin released his Origin Of The Species more than 2 centuries ago.

[AdinDraco]

Um, isn't it exactly 150 years since Origin/species? Isn't the fuss of the anniversary why that loon Ray Comfort is attempting to hijack the publicity with his free book crap? (Boy, I'd love a copy of one of those books...just to have that amount of reason and insanity together in one little package.)

[Ladewig]

Even if the figure is 10% it's still too high. For the love of Zoroaster, we are in the 21st century. Darwin released his Origin Of The Species more than 2 centuries ago.

I believe the figure may be at least 200% too high (i.e. the percentage of YEC in the U.S. may be less than 13% of the population).