Slavery Part Deux

[mymistake]

 

 

 

I have a question for you too, Conversationalist SteveBennet. (Yes we know who you are.)  What is your obsession with this website?  Do you need some support in coming to terms with your own deconversion?

 

How are you certain that he is SteveBennett? Did you track his IP address or something?

 

 

"Or something"  

 

 Sorry-- I don't know how much I can/should disclose.  

 

 

He's been booted. Again.  Should we have a pool on when his next reincarnation will be?  lol

 

 

We should have a "Spotting Steve Bennett" thread including a list of all his previous names.

 

I would also like to know how many of the ex-Christian ladies got an unsolicited PM sales pitch from Steve over the years.  Just curious.

[Roz]

Well I'm personally disappointed.

 

Matthew had jesus resurrecting with lightning, earthquake, graves opening and those zombies running all around town.  Resurrections these days are lacking in the theatrics.  

[TrueFreedom]

I've received PMs from him as well.  I guess even straight guys cannot help themselves.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Good thread Roz and co.

 

Thanks Mods for sorting him out again.  

 

This was my first time seeing him in action.  He's irritating, but it was nice to see how quickly he was spotted.  Well done, Ex-Cs!

[Fernweh]

He does have a way of bringing the entire forum to life.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

He does have a way of bringing the entire forum to life.

 

Well, the lions were all hungry and waiting for fresh meat. He came into the den wearing a new mask. Sure enough, when the lions attempted to tear him to pieces, his mask fell off and they realized, "Hey, it's that guy again! He tasted horrible when he was in here before. Why is he back?!"

[RipVanWinkle]

"Well we can at least agree to disagree. I would, personally, try to incorporate the author's original understanding of key words. . . rather than attempt to apply my own modern understanding to key words.

 

I think that's the only fair way to try and understand an author's original meaning."

Conversationalist

 

 

 

If you think that the crystal clear bible verses Roz pointed out to you are not

expressing the original intent of its authors why don't you check it out with bible

scholars? Critical historians have been studying the manuscripts of the bible for many

years. Find a legitimate scholar that supports you view that these verses don't mean

what they say. Find out from a history what the practice of the Hebrews was with

respect to buying slaves from foreigners. That would be an indication as to how they interpreted their own law.

 

By the way, how could the bible god be omniscient, on the one hand, and not know that having his holy word written down in only one language (the OT)would create problems of interpretation in much later generations? He must have known this would happen.

 

There have been translations of the OT into multiple different languages. Have any of

those translations supported your misinterpretation? Any?

 

One last point. Explain why god would communicate his all important Word to humans in

any language that was not clear and distinct in every generation? Was he unable to work that problem out? And yet he makes peoples' post life in heaven or hell depend upon

their understanding of the bible? Kind of stupid isn't it? bill

[DoubtingNate]

Whoever asked, I'm another PM recipient. We exchanged a few messages and then he said a bunch of weird, unrelated stuff about statistics and the study of epidemics. By then I had realized what was going on and backed away slowly.

[ironhorse]

A good explanation on slavery and the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2013/07/slavery-the-bible-and-our-need-for-humility/

[DoubtingNate]

That article is bullshit. In the OT, you conquer a city and you take their captives as slaves (if they're not already on God's 'kill everyone' list). That is not indentured servitude and it is disingenuous, cherry-picking or special pleading to say otherwise.

[mymistake]

A good explanation on slavery and the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2013/07/slavery-the-bible-and-our-need-for-humility/

 

 

Wrong!

 

A better explanation on slavery and the Bible is that the Bible was written by slave holders (who were also guilty of many other barbaric deeds) to justify their practice.

[Aggie]

A good explanation on slavery and the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2013/07/slavery-the-bible-and-our-need-for-humility/

Ironhorse,

 

I'd have to go with these guys that the article you posted is very misleading.

 

A few points to consider:

• In the "cultural context" of ancient Palestine, the Essenes did assert slavery to be morally wrong categorically.  As Philo of Alexandria (c.20-c.50 CE) notes, Essenes had “not a single slave among them” and were known to “condemn masters, not only as unjust, inasmuch as they corrupt the very principle of equality, but likewise as impious, because they destroy the ordinances of nature, which generated them all equally.”  Why did these non-Christians see what Christians did not?
• Church father Athenagoras (c.133-190) described slavery as commonplace among early believers, noting simply that Christians “have slaves, some more and some fewer.”  Early Christians read NT texts on slavery as you would expect they would have.  Freeing a slave was a "good work," but it was not a requirement for good standing in the church or for "holiness" in general.
• There was a horrible racial element to slavery in the Americas, but slavery is by nature abusive and is just about inextricably connected with manipulation and physical and mental abuse.  Whips, chains, and collars were part of slavery in the ancient world as well.  Take St. Augustine, who noted that God willed slavery and the abuse that comes with it: "It is clear, then, that sin is the primary cause of servitude, in the sense that social status in which one man is compelled to be subjected to another man.  Nor does this befall a man, save by the decree of God who is never unjust and who knows how to impose appropriate punishments on different sinners.  … Meanwhile, in case anyone in the home behaves contrary to its peace, he is disciplined by words or whipping or other kinds of punishment lawful and licit in human society, and for his own good, to readjust him to the peace he has abandoned."
• Christians, in general, have changed their codes of morality over the centuries.  Slavery was very often an "unknown sin" to Christians in earlier periods-- but now widely recognized to be an affront to humanity among Christian churches.  Was this change due to careful exegesis?  I would say it's rather a combination of the inconsistencies in Christian morality (golden rule vs. a lot of other things) plus the growing sense of human rights coming from outside Christianity that affected its moral code.  
• I absolutely love this quote, which references slavery (among other things): “By the unknown sin I do not mean a secret sin … I mean acts which were not known to be sins; acts for which no vocabulary existed to denominate them as sins; acts participated in by upright men and women, by popes and dedicated members of religious orders and canonized saints; acts now regarded with horror as the blackest kind of affront to the human person and among the most serious derelictions of duty to God, whose image is the person.”—John T. Noonan, Catholic historian and federal judge.  
• A last one that you hear knocked about sometimes: “What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin.”  Rev. Richard Fuller (1804-1876), American pro-slavery advocate and founding member of the Southern Baptist denomination.

The reason that people have read the Bible to allow or condone slavery is because the Bible has texts which allow or condone slavery.  The reason why people have thought it was good to beat children is that the Bible has texts that say it's good to beat children.  The reason why women have been told that they are inferior is because the Bible has texts that say women shouldn't hold authority over men, should remain quiet, should wear headcoverings, etc.  IMO, if you subvert this kind of direct language, you end up with a document that is so unintelligible that there's no reason to have a canon in the first place.

 

Modern exegesis is, IMO, often an attempt to make the Bible a better book than it is.  

 

Ironhorse, your morality is better than OT morality.  You think stoning is barbaric, don't think children should be slaughtered in war, and don't think people should be burned to death.  While the NT has some rather profound spots, your morality is better than many aspects of NT morality.  You don't think slaves should obey their masters, I imagine you have much more progressive views on women, etc.  And thank goodness for that!

[bornagainathiest]

A good explanation on slavery and the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2013/07/slavery-the-bible-and-our-need-for-humility/

 

IronHorse,

 

You rate this explanation as 'good' because...?

 

 

1.

It's a good explanation because a Christian authority figure you kowtow to told you it is.

 

2.

It's a good explanation because it's the only book on slavery and the Bible that you know of.

 

3.

It's a good explanation because it's the first hit that came up when you Googled the question.

 

4.

It's a good explanation because it's the closest book on this subject to where you're sitting right now.

 

5.

It's a good explanation because someone else went and got the book for you when you asked them.

 

6.

It's a good explanation because you're not bothered to find a better one.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

A good explanation on slavery and the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2013/07/slavery-the-bible-and-our-need-for-humility/

Ironhorse,

 

I'd have to go with these guys that the article you posted is very misleading.

 

A few points to consider:

• In the "cultural context" of ancient Palestine, the Essenes did assert slavery to be morally wrong categorically.  As Philo of Alexandria (c.20-c.50 CE) notes, Essenes had “not a single slave among them” and were known to “condemn masters, not only as unjust, inasmuch as they corrupt the very principle of equality, but likewise as impious, because they destroy the ordinances of nature, which generated them all equally.”  Why did these non-Christians see what Christians did not?
• Church father Athenagoras (c.133-190) described slavery as commonplace among early believers, noting simply that Christians “have slaves, some more and some fewer.”  Early Christians read NT texts on slavery as you would expect they would have.  Freeing a slave was a "good work," but it was not a requirement for good standing in the church or for "holiness" in general.
• There was a horrible racial element to slavery in the Americas, but slavery is by nature abusive and is just about inextricably connected with manipulation and physical and mental abuse.  Whips, chains, and collars were part of slavery in the ancient world as well.  Take St. Augustine, who noted that God willed slavery and the abuse that comes with it: "It is clear, then, that sin is the primary cause of servitude, in the sense that social status in which one man is compelled to be subjected to another man.  Nor does this befall a man, save by the decree of God who is never unjust and who knows how to impose appropriate punishments on different sinners.  … Meanwhile, in case anyone in the home behaves contrary to its peace, he is disciplined by words or whipping or other kinds of punishment lawful and licit in human society, and for his own good, to readjust him to the peace he has abandoned."
• Christians, in general, have changed their codes of morality over the centuries.  Slavery was very often an "unknown sin" to Christians in earlier periods-- but now widely recognized to be an affront to humanity among Christian churches.  Was this change due to careful exegesis?  I would say it's rather a combination of the inconsistencies in Christian morality (golden rule vs. a lot of other things) plus the growing sense of human rights coming from outside Christianity that affected its moral code.  
• I absolutely love this quote, which references slavery (among other things): “By the unknown sin I do not mean a secret sin … I mean acts which were not known to be sins; acts for which no vocabulary existed to denominate them as sins; acts participated in by upright men and women, by popes and dedicated members of religious orders and canonized saints; acts now regarded with horror as the blackest kind of affront to the human person and among the most serious derelictions of duty to God, whose image is the person.”—John T. Noonan, Catholic historian and federal judge.  
• A last one that you hear knocked about sometimes: “What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin.”  Rev. Richard Fuller (1804-1876), American pro-slavery advocate and founding member of the Southern Baptist denomination.

The reason that people have read the Bible to allow or condone slavery is because the Bible has texts which allow or condone slavery.  The reason why people have thought it was good to beat children is that the Bible has texts that say it's good to beat children.  The reason why women have been told that they are inferior is because the Bible has texts that say women shouldn't hold authority over men, should remain quiet, should wear headcoverings, etc.  IMO, if you subvert this kind of direct language, you end up with a document that is so unintelligible that there's no reason to have a canon in the first place.

 

Modern exegesis is, IMO, often an attempt to make the Bible a better book than it is.  

 

Ironhorse, your morality is better than OT morality.  You think stoning is barbaric, don't think children should be slaughtered in war, and don't think people should be burned to death.  While the NT has some rather profound spots, your morality is better than many aspects of NT morality.  You don't think slaves should obey their masters, I imagine you have much more progressive views on women, etc.  And thank goodness for that!

 

I've never asked Ironhorse about this, and I'm interested in what he thinks about it.

 

Ironhorse, what is your view of Paul's views on women as expressed in the NT?  

 

What message do you think god was inspiring Paul to say about women?

 

How does that square up against contemporary views of women in society?

[thereisnoperfect]

Still eagerly waiting for the Ironhorse clarification of what made that explanation "good."

[mymistake]

Still eagerly waiting for the Ironhorse clarification of what made that explanation "good."

 

If you are expecting more than music lyrics you are going to be disappointed.

[thereisnoperfect]

 

Still eagerly waiting for the Ironhorse clarification of what made that explanation "good."

 

If you are expecting more than music lyrics you are going to be disappointed.

 

Found a page on the internet

Don't know quite what it means yet

But I'll ignore rules of decorum

Post it on my favorite forum

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Still eagerly waiting for the Ironhorse clarification of what made that explanation "good."

 

If you are expecting more than music lyrics you are going to be disappointed.

 

Found a page on the internet

Don't know quite what it means yet

But I'll ignore rules of decorum

Post it on my favorite forum

 

 

His name is Ironhorse

He told us of a book

Said we should look

But we won't, of course

 

I trusted him once

I've been waiting for months

He said he'd reply

But the days just go by

 

Roz caught him out

Mixing Ham and Craig up

Yep, there's no doubt

He should shut the **** up!

[♦ ficino ♦]

[TheRedneckProfessor]

BHIM AND THE HORSE

 

Though many prefer

To call him TinPony,

Bhim was the first

To call him a phony.

 

He stated emphatic,

The horse's appeal

Though mostly pragmatic,

Was caricature, not real;

 

But rather an image

Of christianity

That one would envisage

As plain insanity.

 

The horse, Bhim explains,

Is one who by pretense

Goes to very great pains

To keep from making sense,

 

In effort to complete

A demonstration of

A farcical defeat

Of christ's eternal love.

 

The horse's presence here

Is quite the opposite

Of that which he holds dear:

The claim of christ's bullshit.

 

He demonstrates his aim,

Like any honest worker,

By looking like a dame

For any honest lurker.

 

And Bhim acknowledged this--

The first one to explain

That ignorance is bliss

But falseness is a pain.

 

So here's a toast proposed,

In highest honor, Bhim,

For sussing horsey's prose,

Let's raise a glass for him!

[midniterider]

A good explanation on slavery and the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2013/07/slavery-the-bible-and-our-need-for-humility/

 

The practice of indentured servitude should never have been allowed. Physical punishment of an employee should never be allowed. Nobody should be 'owned' whether by force, fear or voluntarily signing a contract giving up their own personal autonomy. It amounts to slavery.

 

It's bad enough that my previous employer believed they could make us work any day, any time, and even order us to stay overnight up to three days if 'the weather got really bad.'

[midniterider]

"But if we don’t ask questions like “Who was this written for and why? What did these words mean to the original audience?”, we’re not reading the Bible responsibly."

 

"Jesus, the same today, yesterday and tomorrow...." 

 

Except when we have to consider what these words meant for the original audience.

[florduh]

Deut 20

 

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20

 

 

Despite the obvious commands from the God character in the Bible, modern Christians who aren't a part of the barbaric society that penned those verses try to find a way to show it doesn't mean what it clearly means. The God character in Judeo-Christian mythology is, not surprisingly, as brutal and bloodthirsty as the ancients who wrote the stories. Not only is slavery condoned in these and other passages, but murder of innocents as well.

 

Christians! Stop being pussies and own up to what your book actually says. Believe the story or don't, but don't tell me that shit's not in there.

[Ravenstar]

[sdelsolray]

 

Deut 20

 

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20

 

 

…

The God character in Judeo-Christian mythology is, not surprisingly, as brutal and bloodthirsty as the ancients who wrote the stories. Not only is slavery condoned in these and other passages, but murder of innocents as well.

 

…

 

Yes, not surprisingly at all.  The various gods in the OT are simple projections of the humans (and the surrounding civilization) who wrote the OT books.  The reason the gods in those books approved of slavery is because that human society approved of slavery.  The reason the gods in those books ordered the death of persons, including children on occasion, is because that human society ordered the death of persons, including children on occasion.  Quite simple, really.