None so dumb as who won't think.

9/18/04 7:18:03 AM

Heh.

Seeking evidence from third parties for one's position is "dumb". Of course it is, for a believer.

bcnu,
Mikem

"The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism."
-Ted Grant

Post #174,924

by imric

9/18/04 8:46:27 AM

9/18/04 8:48:48 AM

That's evidence?

at best it was an assertion. No backing facts. The assertion happens to be true, BUT - it in no way invalidates ANYTHING I posted.

In fact, you have yet to contradict anything I've said, save by assertion.

But that's all right. (whoops! Clicked too soon). I'm sure that those that opposed slavery did so because they WEREN'T religious.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric Sept. 18, 2004, 08:48:48 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #174,941

9/18/04 12:41:20 PM

What third parties?

You quoted the Gospel and grossly distorted its meaning. COngratulation: you and bin Laden agree on the meaning on religion. The fact that all truly religious people disagree with you must be of no consequence. Picking an interpretation and sticking to it - how religious of you. How dumb.

--

... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]

Post #175,170

9/20/04 12:09:25 PM

Interpretation? You're interpretting ferchrissakes.

And Kudos to you for interpretting. Let me be clear: A plain-text reading of any of the so-called religious texts coming out of the ME at once causes the "believer" to have a grotesque sense of superiority and eagerness to expunge any "non-believers" from humanity.

Post #175,173

9/20/04 12:33:59 PM

Not even close

...Let me be clear: A plain-text reading of any of the so-called religious texts coming out of the ME at once causes the "believer" to have a grotesque sense of superiority and eagerness to expunge any "non-believers" from humanity.

If you're saying that by reading the Bible I have a sense of superiority and eagerness to "expunge" all non-believers from humanity, you would be completely mistaken.

Nightowl >8#

"It's not where a person stands in time of comfort and security, but rather where they stand in times of strife and controversy that determine true friends."
(Quote sent to me by a true friend, author unknown).

Post #175,179

9/20/04 12:42:10 PM

<sigh>

If you're saying that by reading the Bible I have a sense of superiority and eagerness to "expunge" all non-believers from humanity, you would be completely mistaken.

"A plain text reading". The only Christians I know (and I count among them most of the Christians here) that are both self-proclaimed Christians and decent human beings are the Christians who don't take too seriously the medieval superstitious tripe that comprises most of the Christian Bible.

Does that help? In short, if you "read the Bible" without rejecting that which is vulgar, indecent and inhumane, then ....

Post #175,181

9/20/04 12:46:07 PM

Not sure

Because I don't know what you mean by your last statement. I just know I don't feel the ways you described, no matter what I think about what I read.

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,184

9/20/04 12:54:57 PM

The nut.

If you don't "interpret the Bible" when you read it and instead take what it says literally, then you become "superior" and want to beat, maim, enslave, kill, etc., all non-believers.

This is not unique to Christian writings, that kind of text is present in all the so-called religious texts arising out of the ME.

Post #175,186

9/20/04 1:00:14 PM

Ah ok

The ME is the Mesopotamian Era, right?

Well then it's clear to me that the Bible (or other texts) aren't what's evil, it's the way individuals interpret the words that can become evil. So I still stand on my point that religion isn't the root of all evil, but people interpret it in their own ways and turn those interpretations into evil behaviors on their part.

I think we've come full-circle here, there isn't much more to say.

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,203

9/20/04 2:56:43 PM

NO!

Well then it's clear to me that the Bible (or other texts) aren't what's evil, it's the way individuals interpret the words that can become evil.

NOT AT ALL. It IS the interpretation that makes it humane! The plain text explicitly calls for atrocities to be committed against any and all non-believers! That is WITHOUT interpretation.

Post #175,213

9/20/04 3:28:44 PM

Same thing

They either interpret it LITERALLY or FIGURATIVELY.

It's still all about how people take the words and their meanings.

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,187

by imric

9/20/04 1:04:54 PM

No kudos to you for repeating

without evidence of any kind that this is the case.

Without any response (outside of repetition) to any of my posts.

Pound the table, m'lad! Pound the table!

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #175,201

9/20/04 2:54:43 PM

Huh?

Are you claiming that the "sacred books" of J-C-M do not contain passages like the one I already cited? What is your point? Is religion the only thing that causes people to commit atrocities? Of course not. But it is among the very, very few that promise ever-lasting-life, (or virgins, depending on the flavor) explicitly in the text of their manuals/Bibles in plain, translated, English. You don't think that's worthy of condemning? A belief system that literally encourages atrocities?

Post #175,207

by imric

9/20/04 3:14:38 PM

Go ahead - change your point

after it became apparent that you were wrong.

Lessee now - you claimed that:

"it IS religion that is at the root of most (all?) evil."

and are unable to support that statement; unable to back up the idea that the flaw exists in humanity with or without religion.

'it is religion alone that causes that subset to hold that they are more "God-like"'

(underlining mine)

yet with all of your mocking and insults, you yourself are guilty of this (simply refusing to use godlike in reference to yourself does not absolve you of this attitude of 'superiority') type of thinking. Unless you are religious (and this I doubt), you yourself break your own line of reasoning by your behaviour. YOur philosophy is 'superior' to religion, therefor it is OK to deride religion and religious people, no?

Bah. It is impossible to reason with people like you, unless you are broken of your sophmoric philosophies.

*chuckle*

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #175,214

9/20/04 3:30:53 PM

Yes!

yet with all of your mocking and insults, you yourself are guilty of this (simply refusing to use godlike in reference to yourself does not absolve you of this attitude of 'superiority') type of thinking. Unless you are religious (and this I doubt), you yourself break your own line of reasoning by your behaviour. YOur philosophy is 'superior' to religion, therefor it is OK to deride religion and religious people, no?

Bah. It is impossible to reason with people like you, unless you are broken of your sophmoric philosophies.

Very very well said.

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,215

by imric

9/20/04 3:33:05 PM

*chuckle*

The second was a joke; a rephrasing of his own words.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #175,222

9/20/04 3:46:11 PM

True, but

it also points out that you can't reason with someone who refuses to look at things reasonably or refuses to have an open mind about something.

But yeah, I wondered if the second part was a joke. I liked the first part best.

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,218

9/20/04 3:39:17 PM

Hey, that's *graduate* philosophies ;-)

"it IS religion that is at the root of most (all?) evil."

and are unable to support that statement; unable to back up the idea that the flaw exists in humanity with or without religion.

I can support that argument. The (all?) is clearly a question. Practicing a religion "as it is written" is what lead to the Crusades, the prosecution of Gallileo, the horrors of the corrupt early Popes, the slaughter of the native peoples of North America, most - if not all - of the thousands of years of violence in the ME, The Spanish Inquisition, etc. ad plenty-o-nauseum.

'it is religion alone that causes that subset to hold that they are more "God-like"'

What else besides religion teaches any of its adherence that they know God and/or are the Chosen People? That only by believing as we do can you enter heaven? I don't know of anything other than religion that promises eternal life, just for a "belief". Do you?

Post #175,226

by imric

9/20/04 4:00:05 PM

Is it?

I can support that argument. The (all?) is clearly a question. Practicing a religion "as it is written" is what lead to the Crusades, the prosecution of Gallileo, the horrors of the corrupt early Popes, the slaughter of the native peoples of North America, most - if not all - of the thousands of years of violence in the ME, The Spanish Inquisition, etc. ad plenty-o-nauseum.

And I think it is unsupported - I believe that most of these horrors were done for secular reasons, and justified by religious argument. I believe that most historians wou;ld back me up, as well. Gallileo threatened the secular power of the Papacy, for instance - the corrupt popes were, well corrupt - and used the church as a vehicle for wealth and domination, most of the native peoples of North America died of disease, the rest had thier land and posessions stolen - saving thier souls was only an excuse, just some examples.

Look - NEVER in this thread have I even implied that the various religious texts weren't used as an excuse for abomination; I simply believe that people can twist ANYTHING in order to rationalize thier own behaviour. I amn not immune (or superior *grin*) to this, you are not, atheists are not, muslims are not, followers of the Tao are not.

I believe that both the desire to avoid personal responsibility and rationalization are both at the root of human evil.

Not religion - especially not a particular type of religion.

Not even general ideology.

The flaw is in all of us.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #175,259

9/20/04 4:34:41 PM

Re: Is it?

Look - NEVER in this thread have I even implied that the various religious texts weren't used as an excuse for abomination; I simply believe that people can twist ANYTHING in order to rationalize thier own behaviour. I amn not immune (or superior *grin*) to this, you are not, atheists are not, muslims are not, followers of the Tao are not.

I believe that both the desire to avoid personal responsibility and rationalization are both at the root of human evil.

Not religion - especially not a particular type of religion.

Not even general ideology.

The flaw is in all of us.

And I say loudly, AMEN! ;)
(interpretation, I agree completely)

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,189

by ChrisR

9/20/04 1:15:19 PM

Ego is Id

I think the attitude that "I am superior" is an inherent human trait. After all, I can never know exactly what it means to be you, but I am quite familiar with what it means to be me (you'll have to take my word on that since you are not me).

Now extend the range out a bit more, my family is much more important to me than others. My neighborhood is the most important in the community. My city is the most important in the state. My state is the most important in the country. My country is the most important in the world. My planet is the most important in the universe. Adding another layer to this tribalism (religion) may add one more layer of us vs. them, but it is not an essential ingredient. You can add all sorts of other economic and political tribes to the mix.

As for your take on religion, I would think that a non-theist would assume that since there is no god, the beliefs of any group is not really as cohesive as some may pretend. In particular, the religions may have some beliefs in common, but what they mean for a particular individual is subject to time and experience.

Post #175,199

9/20/04 2:49:04 PM

I'm not sure about a non-theist, because I'm not one.

I think more than one person in this thread has confused the issue. I'm not talking about one's true religion (that which is entirely subjective and cannot be discussed in any meaningful way - see, for instance, Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching, "The name that can be named is not the eternal Name." and Chapter 56 "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.").

This is not what I'm speaking of. What I've been protesting is the content of the so-called sacred texts of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. All of them call for atrocities to be commited against the heathens explicitly - and this, I point out, distinguishes them from, say, Taoism and Buddhism.

"Religious" Christians, Muslims and Jews do no accept such passages in their respective texts and instead "interpret" or "spin" what the words mean. In short, they do not practice their religion in the manner it is taught. I would have thought holding such would not be the source of any controversy.

Post #175,232

by ChrisR

9/20/04 4:09:03 PM

So which passage says that we should commit violence?

This is not what I'm speaking of. What I've been protesting is the content of the so-called sacred texts of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. All of them call for atrocities to be commited against the heathens explicitly - and this, I point out, distinguishes them from, say, Taoism and Buddhism.

Can't speak much about Islam, not being aware of their texts or history. From the Jewish standpoint, I think you'll find the Talmud is pretty important in the interpretation of the Bible. From a Catholic standpoint, the interpretation falls in a combination of the Bible, tradition, and authority. I could dig up the Catholic position on humility, grace and violence if you'd like, but I rather doubt they would support your position. Which leaves us with the Evangelical Christians (or Protestants if you'd rather). Most of their interpretation falls under the domain of Sola Scriptura. Even that won't help your position because your position assumes that their interpretation matches what you take to be obvious.

So are you saying that you know more about these various religious traditions than do the practitioners themselves? I generally hold the individual accountable for their actions and I find no evidence that being proud is considered a virtue (it's one of the 7 deadly sins). Most traditions, be it Eastern or Western, hold humility to be a virtue. In particular, many Christian groups believe that we are all sinners, saved and unsaved alike. It is only by grace that we come to that state.

From a Christian perspective, there's a large number of things which are ignored in the "Old Testament". Eating habits are the obvious example (not many Kosher Christians). Early Christianity even wrestled with whether to accept the early texts, preferring the new fangled testament. In the end, it was decided that they were a necessary ingredient to interpreting the New Testament, but neither were all of the pre & proscriptions regarded as relevant.

Anyhow, is there anything in the New Testament that makes your point? From a Christian perspective, the Old Testament is only relevant from the standpoint of the interpretation of Jesus.

Now, all of this is, of course, theoretical. In practice, any individual or tribe can be downright cruel. And I would agree that religion tends to cause divisiveness and that people tend to be smug about their beliefs. But when it comes to the "sacred scriptures", what you are assuming is (a) there's only one interpretation (b) the various texts that make up the whole are consistent and uniform; and (c) individuals are not afforded the luxory of making their own choices about what things mean.

I'll grant that religion has been fraught with violence. What I don't particularly accept though is that it was the necessary ingredient. For my money, economic and political motivation has a higher correlation to the events that have unfolded in human history. Religion is but a tool used to motivate others to that end.

Post #175,261

9/20/04 4:39:34 PM

Wow, great response!

...In particular, many Christian groups believe that we are all sinners, saved and unsaved alike. It is only by grace that we come to that state.

I wholly agree here.

Now, all of this is, of course, theoretical. In practice, any individual or tribe can be downright cruel. And I would agree that religion tends to cause divisiveness and that people tend to be smug about their beliefs....

And you can substitute politics for the word religion in that sentence as well, and probably many others.

I'll grant that religion has been fraught with violence. What I don't particularly accept though is that it was the necessary ingredient. For my money, economic and political motivation has a higher correlation to the events that have unfolded in human history. Religion is but a tool used to motivate others to that end.

My thoughts exactly, great post!

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,202

9/20/04 2:55:05 PM

I guess it all depends on what's

"plain text" to you. To me it's plain that "The Lord" in this means God. To you, it's some mysterious "owner". Ok, taking your interpretation for a second, are _you_, personally, an "owner" of anybody? If not, then it's not yours to punish. If yes, I'd like to hear an explanation.

--

... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]

Post #175,205

9/20/04 3:06:59 PM

I could be wrong about this, but I think "case"

is significant here. Here's the whole thing (AFAIK):

41. Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
42. And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portions of meat in due season?
43. Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45. But 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 be drunken;
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 in sunder, and will appoint his portion with the unbelievers.
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.
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 much be required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

[link|http://members.cox.net/rev.claude/prbl04.htm|http://members.cox.n...claude/prbl04.htm]

See, they switched case. So, maybe the "owner" thing is appropriate after all and here the Bible okays slave owners beating their upity slaves as hard as "unbelievers".

Post #175,206

9/20/04 3:12:54 PM

9/20/04 3:13:18 PM

It's a parable

"lord" certainly means "Lord" here (edit: but not literally). The "master" "will appoint his portion with the unbelievers"? Unbelievers in what - his masterly persona? Nope, it's obviously a parable: if human master punsishes his slave (servant?) who "say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and be drunken", the Lord above will do same with His servants who He left in authority. If anything, this is a piece of subversive anti-establishment propaganda.

--

... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]

Edited by Arkadiy Sept. 20, 2004, 03:13:18 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #175,220

9/20/04 3:43:11 PM

Re: It's a parable

Very well defended, Arkadiy!

I couldn't have said it better.

And to add one other things, most of the described "atrocities" Mmoffitt refers to happened in the Old Testament and or New Testament before Christ came with the New Covenant. When the New Covenant replaced the old one, most of the things those "believers" were required to do, (such as blood sacrifices for example), were no longer required or expected.

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,372

9/21/04 9:27:32 AM

"New Covenant" hmmmmmmm.....

That's where Christians co-opted "The Chosen People" for themselves and took the moniker away from the Jews, right? And this isn't about "supremacy" - Feh!

Post #175,396

9/21/04 11:38:40 AM

9/21/04 11:40:13 AM

Ooops -- ignore.. moving to religion as requested

Nothing to see here

Edited by Nightowl Sept. 21, 2004, 11:40:13 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #175,399

9/21/04 11:41:00 AM

I have no idea what you're talking about (new thread)

Created as new thread #175398 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=175398|I have no idea what you're talking about]

Post #175,221

9/20/04 3:46:09 PM

The "unbelievers" are a class.

...will cut in sunder, and will appoint his portion with the unbelievers.

I'm not clear on what "appoint his portion" means, but it is clear that within this text the "unbelievers" are of lower class. Which is precisely and example of what imric has been beating me up for.

Post #175,225

9/20/04 3:50:28 PM

How is that clear?

I'm not clear on what "appoint his portion" means, but it is clear that within this text the "unbelievers" are of lower class. Which is precisely and example of what imric has been beating me up for.

Huh? Not so. It doesn't make it clear that unbelievers are of lower class, only that he chose the unbelievers over the believers. That's just a conscious choice, just like choosing one team over another, or one political party over another ... it doesn't always mean one is lower class than another, just the choice the chooser made.

So in this case, he chooses to appoint his portion with the team or party of believers, rather than the team or party of unbelievers.

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,282

9/20/04 5:56:31 PM

Oh my. A class.

Can't you take the word for what it means? Unbeliever, AKA kiafir - one who does not believe in God. Nothing to do with class.

"Appoint his portion" means "assign his fate" or some such AFAIK.

The text is saying that abusive boss is no better than unbeliever, and shall be punished by God. Do you disagree with my interpretation?

--

... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]

Post #175,290

by jb4

9/20/04 6:21:25 PM

Psssst! Don't tell Bryce.....

jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

Post #175,291

by pwhysall

9/20/04 6:24:15 PM

Remember, the meek shall inherit the earth...

Post #175,295

9/20/04 6:43:10 PM

And what did poor bastards do to deserver such fate?

--

... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]

Post #175,311

by boxley

9/20/04 9:17:15 PM

6' deep 6' long and 4' wide

These miserable swine, having nothing but illusions to live on, marshmallows for the soul in place of good meat, will now stoop to any disgusting level to prevent even those miserable morsels from vanishing into thin air. The country is being destroyed by these stupid, vicious right-wing fanatics, the spiritual brothers of the brownshirts and redstars, collectivists and authoritarians all, who would not know freedom if it bit them on the ass, who spend all their time trying to stamp, bludgeon, and eviscerate the very idea of the individual's right to his own private world. DRL
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #175,315

9/20/04 9:37:45 PM

4' wide??????

I don't know of any single grave that is 4 feet wide. Family plots maybe, but not single graves. And most are longer than 6 feet, also. ;)

Nightowl >8#

Post #175,378

by boxley

9/21/04 9:37:24 AM

take a measuring tape to your next funeral 4' wide

Post #175,401

9/21/04 11:42:40 AM

Was just at a wake (new thread)

Created as new thread #175400 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=175400|Was just at a wake]

Post #175,317

by a6l6e6x

9/20/04 9:48:53 PM

And it's Christian thing to share...

graves, especially if it's for the Kosovars. Ask the Serbs.

Alex

"If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer

Post #175,332

by jake123

9/20/04 11:18:01 PM

Okay, that's it

Can you guys move this to religion/metaphysics, please?

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #175,334

9/20/04 11:24:44 PM

Well, we tried earlier

And got some of it there, but the rest seems to be hanging on here.

But if I respond to it anymore, I'll move it again, ok?

Brenda
Nightowl >8#

Post #175,357

by pwhysall

9/21/04 3:13:26 AM

YOU ALL SUCK

Blimey. If you can't get a bad OO pun, then y'all need to go back to humour school.

Bryce? Inheritance? Geddit?

Sigh.

Post #176,048

by orion

9/23/04 10:56:58 PM

Oddly enough, I got it (new thread)

Created as new thread #176047 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=176047|Oddly enough, I got it]

"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].

Post #175,428

by jb4

9/21/04 1:07:16 PM

Since when was Bryce meek?

Post #175,370

9/21/04 9:24:21 AM

Almost, but not quite.

The text is saying that abusive boss is no better than unbeliever, and shall be punished by God. Do you disagree with my interpretation?

Not the boss, the slave. The slave is the one to be punished as much as the "unbeliever". This isn't about punishing the boss, it is about punishing the slave for goofing off while the boss was away.

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 in sunder, and will appoint his portion with the unbelievers.

The slave is to be punished as though he were a non-believer. So, non-obedient slaves and unbelievers are in the same class. Chris, you listening? Others may argue but imo subjecting people to slavery - and then punishing them for being disobedient to their masters IS advocating violence.

Post #175,376

9/21/04 9:34:10 AM

Read it carefully

The slave was left in charge in boss' absence. He imagined that the boss is not coming back, and started to abuse his position. The boss shall come back and punish the bad slave.

OK, now bring it one level higher. The boss becomes God, the slave left in authority is a ruler, and the other slaves he abused are poor people, widows and orphans. The ruler thinks that God, after giving him authority, is not coming back to demand an account. The ruler is mistaken.

Now, even the "lower" interpretation is not too bad. The bad slave had it coming. The higher is quite good. Do you have any objections?

(This will be my last attempt to explain my interpretation. If this does not get through, nothing will.)

--

... a reference to Presidente Arbusto.
-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html|Geoffrey K. Pullum]

Post #175,538

9/21/04 8:55:56 PM

You made my point.

You have interpretted the text to mean something it does not explicitly state. And in so doing, added some humanity/compassion/reason that was not there in plain text.

Post #175,610