FREE TAPATALK APP

joobz · 16th August 2009, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Which post, a few posts ago, did I describe Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance?

And it's a fact that there are at least 20,000 ancient manuscripts on the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for Tacitus. And that's not including all the ones that were destroyed by the Romans when the order went out to destroy Christian writings.

Do any of those manuscripts say Jesus was against slavery or do they describe his condoning of beating slaves?

DOC · 16th August 2009, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Do any of those manuscripts say Jesus was against slavery or do they describe his condoning of beating slaves?

Joobz what does slavery have to do with the what we are talking about? You really are over doing it. It didn't bother the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev T. D. Jakes, the Rev Al Sharpton, or the Rev. Ralph Abernathy. I'm sorry it bothers you, a non-black, so much.

Simon39759 · 16th August 2009, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Which post, a few posts ago, did I describe Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance?

And it's a fact that there are at least 20,000 ancient manuscripts on the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for Tacitus. And that's not including all the ones that were destroyed by the Romans when the order went out to destroy Christian writings.

-The list of martyrs you kept re-posting.
-Your post about slavery, that Jesus could not have talked more openly against it because it would have offended the rest of society that'd have crushed the early Christianity.
-Your multiple posts about the gospels' authors and how they really were the apostles but could not give their name more openly out of fear of persecution.

I can not link to these posts right now, it seems that many of them were flushed away since then and I have little enthusiasm digging through your archives, but you did made these statements (often multiple times) didn't you?

DOC · 17th August 2009, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

So, if 20,000 manuscripts mean that the luke story is true, it must also mean that Jesus really did support beating slaves.

Another derail slavery post. And one should notice how you over exaggerate and never tell the whole story of the parable. Here is the parable from Luke 12:47:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...65#post4991365

Also if anyone is interested, I reply additionally to Joobz' pet issue of slavery in posts:

2752, 2705, 2696, 2490, 2501, 2505, 2509, 2513, 2422, 1947, 1889, 1878, 1793, 1775, 1811, 1802, 1795, and 1100.

in my Evidence thread in the History and Lit. Forum. To respond, people ought to put it in there and not in this archaeology thread.

joobz · 17th August 2009, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Another derail slavery post. And one should notice how you over exaggerate and never tell the whole story of the parable.

SO do you admit that your appeal to numbers (20,000 manuscript claim) isn't valid then?
You don't get it both ways DOC:

Either the number of manuscipts makes the luke stories AND Jesus' support of slavery more likely true, or the appeal to numbers is meaningless.

I vote for the later option.

As an aside: I didn't exaggerate anything. Jesus states that it is acceptable to beat a slave. There's multiple levels of immorality tied to such a view.

eccles · 17th August 2009, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

SO do you admit that your appeal to numbers (20,000 manuscript claim) isn't valid then?
You don't get it both ways DOC:

Either the number of manuscipts makes the luke stories AND Jesus' support of slavery more likely true, or the appeal to numbers is meaningless.

I vote for the later option.

As an aside: I didn't exaggerate anything. Jesus states that it is acceptable to beat a slave. There's multiple levels of immorality tied to such a view.

I haven't the time now to search the NT , but I do seem to remember some reference by Jesus (alleged) to the right to own slaves. That is the excuse the Confederates in America used: "It's in the Bible". Led to the Civil War, eh?

Maia · 17th August 2009, 02:42 PM

Here are the verses that I think were in question when it comes to Jesus and slavery:

Matthew 10:24-25. A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.

Luke 12:47.
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows."

Of course, Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar and John Shelby Spong (both of whom believe that there actually was a historical Jesus, so take it with as many grains of salt as desired-- although neither one accepts him as divine in any way), separated out about 80% of the supposed sayings of Jesus which they don't believe were actually said by him. Both of the above were in the 80%, for whatever it's worth.

And about the Harry Potter books... well, of COURSE they're not more real than other novels!! Honestly. Some people just indulge in the wildest, craziest speculation...The fanfic is what's more real.

In particular, the fanfic here. Ahem. Or at least so I've heard. (Strolls away, whistling innocently.)

DOC · 18th August 2009, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Assuming this is true and using your reasoning, we are then 99% confident that Jesus did condone the beating of slaves.

ETA:
Any denial of this point amounts to simple, dishonest special pleading.
DOC, do you know what special pleading is?

One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively go around to other threads saying Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also.

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?

DC · 18th August 2009, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively say Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also.

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Christ stated the slave owner would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?

holy crap, isnt beeing a slave punishment enough?

DOC · 18th August 2009, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by DC

holy crap, isnt beeing a slave punishment enough?

It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so.

DC · 18th August 2009, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so.

so?????
when jesus didnt condemn slavery, he is a bigger ******* than i thought he is.

joobz · 18th August 2009, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively go around to other threads saying Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also.

Oh, I'm sorry DOC. I didn't realize there was a context in which it was ok for a perfect god to condone beating slaves.

Originally Posted by DOC

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Nope. He said it was ok to beat slaves for knowingly or unknowingly going against the master's wishes. Just as long as the beating the unkowning slaves receive is less severe than the knowing slaves.

Originally Posted by DOC

Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?

Slavery is morally wrong and beating people who disobey is barbaric.
There is no "Fair" punishment, except to punish those who would own another human being.

What do YOU think is fair? Do you think it fair that Jesus (who you claim to be god) supported slavery? I sure as hell don't.

joobz · 18th August 2009, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so.

So it's acceptable for people to be slaves, becuase they are "better off" that way? And going back to a question asked of you before:
If you believe this, do you also believe that it would be morally acceptable to round up all homeless children and put them into slavery? Afterall, they would be better off, wouldn't they?

eccles · 18th August 2009, 04:27 AM

Hey DOC,
Be my slave. I need some one to clean my house, do the washing and the dishes.

DC · 18th August 2009, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by eccles

Hey DOC,
Be my slave. I need some one to clean my house, do the washing and the dishes.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png

Marriage is what you need

eccles · 18th August 2009, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by DC

eerrrm you can READ the playboy?
i know noone doing that.

No, my wife won't let me. Or would not if I had a wife. I'm not married and have no kids. I'm happy.

eccles · 18th August 2009, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by dc

marriage is what you need :d

no bloody way

DC · 18th August 2009, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by eccles

No, my wife won't let me. Or would not if I had a wife. I'm not married and have no kids. I'm happy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png

yeah i also life in freedom

Marduk · 18th August 2009, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Slavery is morally wrong and beating people who disobey is barbaric.

should read "Non consensual slavery is morally wrong"

DC · 18th August 2009, 05:03 AM

DOC? is it a Sin that we dont have real slaves anymore? or is wageslavery enough cruel for God and his nutty son Jesus?

amb · 18th August 2009, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by eccles

No, my wife won't let me. Or would not if I had a wife. I'm not married and have no kids. I'm happy.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png

Not playing fair are we? Why should just us married guys suffer. Please get yourself a wife as soon as possible. A little Southern Italian lady would be ideal for you. I know of a couple if you're interested.

amb · 18th August 2009, 05:33 AM

Does archeology prove there was marriage in ancient times? Or were the ancients a lot smarter than us?

Akhenaten · 18th August 2009, 05:37 AM

There seems to have been a fair bit of polygamy around, which to me implies multiple mothers-in-law.

I'll vote for "less smarter" on the strength of that.

eccles · 18th August 2009, 05:50 AM

1 Kings 9 15 Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the LORD's temple, his own palace, the supporting terraces, [e] the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. 16 (Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife. 17 And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.) He built up Lower Beth Horon, 18 Baalath, and Tadmor [f] in the desert, within his land, 19 as well as all his store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses [g] —whatever he desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon and throughout all the territory he ruled.

And how about Solomon, the Dirty Old Man.

1 Kings 11
1But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

2Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

4For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

6And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.

7Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

8And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.

9And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

amb · 18th August 2009, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

There seems to have been a fair bit of polygamy around, which to me implies multiple mothers-in-law.

I'll vote for "less smarter" on the strength of that.

More than one mother in law? What a nightmare!

amb · 18th August 2009, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by eccles

1 Kings 9 15 Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the LORD's temple, his own palace, the supporting terraces, [e] the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. 16 (Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife. 17 And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.) He built up Lower Beth Horon, 18 Baalath, and Tadmor [f] in the desert, within his land, 19 as well as all his store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses [g] —whatever he desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon and throughout all the territory he ruled.

And how about Solomon, the Dirty Old Man. 700 wives was it?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png

700 hundred mother in laws? I would rather fry in a vat of oil!

eccles · 18th August 2009, 06:01 AM

I have a twin set of deep fryers for cooking. The left one I call Friar Benedict and the right one Friar Dominic.

DOC · 18th August 2009, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Originally Posted by joobz

Nope. He said it was ok to beat slaves for knowingly or unknowingly going against the master's wishes. Just as long as the beating the unkowning slaves receive is less severe than the knowing slaves.

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?

Ladewig · 18th August 2009, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?

If you don't beat slaves who beat other slaves, then the slaves will never learn that beating slaves is wrong.

Ladewig · 18th August 2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by DOC

Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes.

Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?

Are we talking about Luke 12?

Quote:

12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Am I reading it wrong? It appears to me that there are three servants. One who beats the others and is "cut in sunder" for his wrongdoing. A second who knows the date of the master's return, does not prepare for it , and gets beaten with "many stripes." A third who does not know the date of the master's return, does not prepare for the return, and gets beaten with "few stripes."

joobz · 18th August 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?

Slavery is wrong. The only just answer is the freeing of the slaves and punishing the master for owning slaves in the first place.

Of course, in this parable, god is the slave master, so make of that what you will.

But admittedly, this is only my modern liberal bias which claims slavery is wrong. I agree that I'm being very insensitive, by not respecting the differences in culture between today and 2 thousand years ago. If only Jesus had some sort of divine prespective that would have provided him with this insight of the modern era. Maybe he would have chosen some other analogy to describe our relationship with god. An analogy that wouldn't have been used for centuries to justify the enslavement of one group of people by another.

DOC · 18th August 2009, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

Of course, in this parable, god is the slave master, so make of that what you will.

Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this:

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

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

paximperium · 18th August 2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this:

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

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

DOC, do you know what a parable is?

joobz · 18th August 2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this:

A rose by any other name, would still beat his servants?

ETA: I noticed that you ignored the substance of my post. you are forced into the corner to admit
either
1.) Jesus wasn't divine and simply a guy limited in vision by his time.
2.) If jesus was divine, then god IS completely ok with beating slaves and is immoral.

Ladewig · 18th August 2009, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this:

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

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

This post is so absurd that I am going to have to reconsider if you are a troll. How can anyone with as much familiarity with the Bible as you not understand that the characters in a parable represent other people?

Surely you don't believe that the parable of the mustard seed is advice on how to grow a garden.

DOC · 18th August 2009, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?

Originally Posted by joobz

Slavery is wrong. The only just answer is the freeing of the slaves and punishing the master for owning slaves in the first place.

I just noticed the parable doesn't say slave, it says servant. A servant would be there voluntarily. And even some slaves at that time voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts. So if this servant who the master put in charge of his household was there voluntarily what punishment would you give him for beating several menservants and maidens?

DOC · 18th August 2009, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

How can anyone with as much familiarity with the Bible as you not understand that the characters in a parable represent other people?

The parable did not say God is the slave master as joobz said. One could imply that, but the parable did not say that.

Ladewig · 18th August 2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I just noticed the parable doesn't say slave, it says servant. A servant would be there voluntarily. And even some slaves at that time voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts. So if this servant who the master put in charge of his household was there voluntarily what punishment would you give him for beating several menservants and maidens?

I would follow Jesus's advice and kill him (Luke 12:46).

Just kidding. On a more serious note, DOC, you keep asking that question as if it were some insightful point that proves your case. It does not.

Ladewig · 18th August 2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

The parable did not say God is the slave master as joobz said. One could imply that, but the parable did not say that.

Fine, let's do it your way. Tell us, DOC, who does the "Lord of the servant" represent in this parable. What exactly is the lesson of this parable?

joobz · 18th August 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

I just noticed the parable doesn't say slave, it says servant. A servant would be there voluntarily. And even some slaves at that time voluntarily sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts.

It's slave or servant depending on which version of the bible you are reading.
Do you think it acceptable to sell one's self into slavery?

Originally Posted by DOC

So if this servant who the master put in charge of his household was there voluntarily what punishment would you give him for beating several menservants and maidens?

that's a big if. But let's pretend that it is true.
I would fire the servant who did the beating and file charges with the police regarding his physical assault of my other servants.

What would you do? Would you kill him like Jesus suggests to do?

16th August 2009, 06:02 PM	#1
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,585	The Bible and Slavery Originally Posted by DOC Which post, a few posts ago, did I describe Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance? And it's a fact that there are at least 20,000 ancient manuscripts on the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for Tacitus. And that's not including all the ones that were destroyed by the Romans when the order went out to destroy Christian writings. Do any of those manuscripts say Jesus was against slavery or do they describe his condoning of beating slaves?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser Last edited by Lisa Simpson; 18th August 2009 at 06:59 PM.

17th August 2009, 02:55 AM	#4
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,784	Originally Posted by joobz So, if 20,000 manuscripts mean that the luke story is true, it must also mean that Jesus really did support beating slaves. Another derail slavery post. And one should notice how you over exaggerate and never tell the whole story of the parable. Here is the parable from Luke 12:47: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...65#post4991365 Also if anyone is interested, I reply additionally to Joobz' pet issue of slavery in posts: 2752, 2705, 2696, 2490, 2501, 2505, 2509, 2513, 2422, 1947, 1889, 1878, 1793, 1775, 1811, 1802, 1795, and 1100. in my Evidence thread in the History and Lit. Forum. To respond, people ought to put it in there and not in this archaeology thread.
	Last edited by DOC; 17th August 2009 at 03:21 AM.

17th August 2009, 05:15 AM	#5
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,585	Originally Posted by DOC Another derail slavery post. And one should notice how you over exaggerate and never tell the whole story of the parable. SO do you admit that your appeal to numbers (20,000 manuscript claim) isn't valid then? You don't get it both ways DOC: Either the number of manuscipts makes the luke stories AND Jesus' support of slavery more likely true, or the appeal to numbers is meaningless. I vote for the later option. As an aside: I didn't exaggerate anything. Jesus states that it is acceptable to beat a slave. There's multiple levels of immorality tied to such a view.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

17th August 2009, 05:25 AM	#6
eccles Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 376	Originally Posted by joobz SO do you admit that your appeal to numbers (20,000 manuscript claim) isn't valid then? You don't get it both ways DOC: Either the number of manuscipts makes the luke stories AND Jesus' support of slavery more likely true, or the appeal to numbers is meaningless. I vote for the later option. As an aside: I didn't exaggerate anything. Jesus states that it is acceptable to beat a slave. There's multiple levels of immorality tied to such a view. I haven't the time now to search the NT , but I do seem to remember some reference by Jesus (alleged) to the right to own slaves. That is the excuse the Confederates in America used: "It's in the Bible". Led to the Civil War, eh?
	__________________ em hotep Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism) Thank 'god' I am Atheist

17th August 2009, 02:42 PM	#7
Maia Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1,261	Here are the verses that I think were in question when it comes to Jesus and slavery: Matthew 10:24-25. A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. Luke 12:47. "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows." Of course, Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar and John Shelby Spong (both of whom believe that there actually was a historical Jesus, so take it with as many grains of salt as desired-- although neither one accepts him as divine in any way), separated out about 80% of the supposed sayings of Jesus which they don't believe were actually said by him. Both of the above were in the 80%, for whatever it's worth. And about the Harry Potter books... well, of COURSE they're not more real than other novels!! Honestly. Some people just indulge in the wildest, craziest speculation...The fanfic is what's more real. In particular, the fanfic here. Ahem. Or at least so I've heard. (Strolls away, whistling innocently.)
	__________________ Satan, aka Precious the Cat-- the Comic! Come and read at Stripgenerator! Last edited by Maia; 17th August 2009 at 02:45 PM.

16th August 2009, 06:18 PM	#2
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,784	Originally Posted by joobz Do any of those manuscripts say Jesus was against slavery or do they describe his condoning of beating slaves? Joobz what does slavery have to do with the what we are talking about? You really are over doing it. It didn't bother the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev T. D. Jakes, the Rev Al Sharpton, or the Rev. Ralph Abernathy. I'm sorry it bothers you, a non-black, so much.

16th August 2009, 06:24 PM	#3
Simon39759 Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,285	Originally Posted by DOC Which post, a few posts ago, did I describe Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance? And it's a fact that there are at least 20,000 ancient manuscripts on the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for Tacitus. And that's not including all the ones that were destroyed by the Romans when the order went out to destroy Christian writings. -The list of martyrs you kept re-posting. -Your post about slavery, that Jesus could not have talked more openly against it because it would have offended the rest of society that'd have crushed the early Christianity. -Your multiple posts about the gospels' authors and how they really were the apostles but could not give their name more openly out of fear of persecution. I can not link to these posts right now, it seems that many of them were flushed away since then and I have little enthusiasm digging through your archives, but you did made these statements (often multiple times) didn't you?

18th August 2009, 02:17 AM	#8
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,784	Originally Posted by joobz Assuming this is true and using your reasoning, we are then 99% confident that Jesus did condone the beating of slaves. ETA: Any denial of this point amounts to simple, dishonest special pleading. DOC, do you know what special pleading is? One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively go around to other threads saying Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also. Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes. Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair?
	Last edited by DOC; 18th August 2009 at 03:18 AM.

18th August 2009, 02:26 AM	#9
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by DOC One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively say Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also. Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes. Christ stated the slave owner would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair? holy crap, isnt beeing a slave punishment enough?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

18th August 2009, 03:13 AM	#10
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,784	Originally Posted by DC holy crap, isnt beeing a slave punishment enough? It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so.

18th August 2009, 03:16 AM	#11
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by DOC It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so. so????? when jesus didnt condemn slavery, he is a bigger ******* than i thought he is.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

18th August 2009, 04:14 AM	#12
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,585	Originally Posted by DOC One could also say it is dishonest not to tell the whole story of the parable and just obsessively go around to other threads saying Jesus condones beating slaves without telling the parable also. Oh, I'm sorry DOC. I didn't realize there was a context in which it was ok for a perfect god to condone beating slaves. Originally Posted by DOC Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes. Nope. He said it was ok to beat slaves for knowingly or unknowingly going against the master's wishes. Just as long as the beating the unkowning slaves receive is less severe than the knowing slaves. Originally Posted by DOC Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair? Slavery is morally wrong and beating people who disobey is barbaric. There is no "Fair" punishment, except to punish those who would own another human being. What do YOU think is fair? Do you think it fair that Jesus (who you claim to be god) supported slavery? I sure as hell don't.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

18th August 2009, 04:17 AM	#13
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,585	Originally Posted by DOC It depends, many slaves were better off than the free poor. I brought in a published book in my other thread that stated so. So it's acceptable for people to be slaves, becuase they are "better off" that way? And going back to a question asked of you before: If you believe this, do you also believe that it would be morally acceptable to round up all homeless children and put them into slavery? Afterall, they would be better off, wouldn't they?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

18th August 2009, 04:27 AM	#14
eccles Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 376	Hey DOC, Be my slave. I need some one to clean my house, do the washing and the dishes.
	__________________ em hotep Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism) Thank 'god' I am Atheist

18th August 2009, 04:28 AM	#15
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by eccles Hey DOC, Be my slave. I need some one to clean my house, do the washing and the dishes. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png Marriage is what you need
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

18th August 2009, 04:41 AM	#16
eccles Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 376	Originally Posted by DC eerrrm you can READ the playboy? i know noone doing that. No, my wife won't let me. Or would not if I had a wife. I'm not married and have no kids. I'm happy.
	__________________ em hotep Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism) Thank 'god' I am Atheist

18th August 2009, 04:43 AM	#17
eccles Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 376	Originally Posted by dc marriage is what you need :d no bloody way
	__________________ em hotep Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism) Thank 'god' I am Atheist Last edited by eccles; 18th August 2009 at 04:45 AM.

18th August 2009, 04:57 AM	#18
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by eccles No, my wife won't let me. Or would not if I had a wife. I'm not married and have no kids. I'm happy. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png yeah i also life in freedom
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

18th August 2009, 04:58 AM	#19
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by joobz Slavery is morally wrong and beating people who disobey is barbaric. should read "Non consensual slavery is morally wrong"

18th August 2009, 05:03 AM	#20
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	DOC? is it a Sin that we dont have real slaves anymore? or is wageslavery enough cruel for God and his nutty son Jesus?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

18th August 2009, 05:30 AM	#21
amb Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Western Australia Posts: 21,408	Originally Posted by eccles No, my wife won't let me. Or would not if I had a wife. I'm not married and have no kids. I'm happy. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png Not playing fair are we? Why should just us married guys suffer. Please get yourself a wife as soon as possible. A little Southern Italian lady would be ideal for you. I know of a couple if you're interested.

18th August 2009, 05:33 AM	#22
amb Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Western Australia Posts: 21,408	Does archeology prove there was marriage in ancient times? Or were the ancients a lot smarter than us?

18th August 2009, 05:37 AM	#23
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,749	There seems to have been a fair bit of polygamy around, which to me implies multiple mothers-in-law. I'll vote for "less smarter" on the strength of that.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

18th August 2009, 05:50 AM	#24
eccles Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 376	About Slaves 1 Kings 9 15 Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the LORD's temple, his own palace, the supporting terraces, [e] the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. 16 (Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife. 17 And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.) He built up Lower Beth Horon, 18 Baalath, and Tadmor [f] in the desert, within his land, 19 as well as all his store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses [g] —whatever he desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon and throughout all the territory he ruled. And how about Solomon, the Dirty Old Man. 1 Kings 11 1But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: 2Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. 7Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. 9And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
	__________________ em hotep Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism) Thank 'god' I am Atheist Last edited by eccles; 18th August 2009 at 05:56 AM.

18th August 2009, 05:53 AM	#25
amb Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Western Australia Posts: 21,408	Originally Posted by Akhenaten There seems to have been a fair bit of polygamy around, which to me implies multiple mothers-in-law. I'll vote for "less smarter" on the strength of that. More than one mother in law? What a nightmare!

18th August 2009, 05:56 AM	#26
amb Guest Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Western Australia Posts: 21,408	Originally Posted by eccles 1 Kings 9 15 Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the LORD's temple, his own palace, the supporting terraces, [e] the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. 16 (Pharaoh king of Egypt had attacked and captured Gezer. He had set it on fire. He killed its Canaanite inhabitants and then gave it as a wedding gift to his daughter, Solomon's wife. 17 And Solomon rebuilt Gezer.) He built up Lower Beth Horon, 18 Baalath, and Tadmor [f] in the desert, within his land, 19 as well as all his store cities and the towns for his chariots and for his horses [g] —whatever he desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebanon and throughout all the territory he ruled. And how about Solomon, the Dirty Old Man. 700 wives was it? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...4aa90d2878.png 700 hundred mother in laws? I would rather fry in a vat of oil!

18th August 2009, 06:01 AM	#27
eccles Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 376	I have a twin set of deep fryers for cooking. The left one I call Friar Benedict and the right one Friar Dominic.
	__________________ em hotep Rev. Robert Tobin (Minister, First Church of Atheism) Thank 'god' I am Atheist

18th August 2009, 10:02 AM	#28
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,784	Originally Posted by DOC Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes. Originally Posted by joobz Nope. He said it was ok to beat slaves for knowingly or unknowingly going against the master's wishes. Just as long as the beating the unkowning slaves receive is less severe than the knowing slaves. You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong?
	Last edited by DOC; 18th August 2009 at 10:10 AM.

18th August 2009, 10:56 AM	#29
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,936	Originally Posted by DOC You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong? If you don't beat slaves who beat other slaves, then the slaves will never learn that beating slaves is wrong.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

18th August 2009, 11:17 AM	#30
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,936	Originally Posted by DOC Joobz you never did say what punishment you would have given the slave (in the parable) who beat "several" menservants and "several" maidens when he knew it was against his master's wishes. Christ stated the slave owner (from the parable) would give him some lashes, what punishment would you think is fair? Are we talking about Luke 12? Quote: 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. Am I reading it wrong? It appears to me that there are three servants. One who beats the others and is "cut in sunder" for his wrongdoing. A second who knows the date of the master's return, does not prepare for it , and gets beaten with "many stripes." A third who does not know the date of the master's return, does not prepare for the return, and gets beaten with "few stripes."
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

18th August 2009, 12:13 PM	#31
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,585	Originally Posted by DOC You still didn't answer the question -- What punishment would you give to a slave who beat several menservants and several maidens when he knew it was wrong? Slavery is wrong. The only just answer is the freeing of the slaves and punishing the master for owning slaves in the first place. Of course, in this parable, god is the slave master, so make of that what you will. But admittedly, this is only my modern liberal bias which claims slavery is wrong. I agree that I'm being very insensitive, by not respecting the differences in culture between today and 2 thousand years ago. If only Jesus had some sort of divine prespective that would have provided him with this insight of the modern era. Maybe he would have chosen some other analogy to describe our relationship with god. An analogy that wouldn't have been used for centuries to justify the enslavement of one group of people by another.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

18th August 2009, 12:44 PM	#32
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,784	Originally Posted by joobz Of course, in this parable, god is the slave master, so make of that what you will. Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this: ..and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

18th August 2009, 12:49 PM	#33
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by DOC Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this: ..and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. DOC, do you know what a parable is?
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

18th August 2009, 12:56 PM	#35
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,936	Originally Posted by DOC Actually the parable doesn't say God is the slave master. It says this: ..and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. This post is so absurd that I am going to have to reconsider if you are a troll. How can anyone with as much familiarity with the Bible as you not understand that the characters in a parable represent other people? Surely you don't believe that the parable of the mustard seed is advice on how to grow a garden.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

18th August 2009, 01:05 PM	#37
DOC Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 7,784	Originally Posted by Ladewig How can anyone with as much familiarity with the Bible as you not understand that the characters in a parable represent other people? The parable did not say God is the slave master as joobz said. One could imply that, but the parable did not say that.