Almost, but not quite.

Post #175,370 by mmoffitt 9/21/04 9:24:21 AM Reply	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. 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 #175,376 by Arkadiy 9/21/04 9:34:10 AM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 9/21/04 8:55:56 PM Reply	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. 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 #175,610 by Arkadiy 9/22/04 8:59:18 AM Reply	Ashton mode on literally cha-cha-cha Ashton Mode off. -- ... a reference to Presidente Arbusto. -- [link\|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001417.html\|Geoffrey K. Pullum]
Post #175,826 by Ashton 9/22/04 7:11:50 PM Reply	I like [referent] mode better. (Corporate Christianity + Bizness) ethics A match made in heaven Practicing Hellatio on each other and anyone else trying not to listen to the erotic sounds of pleasuring - amidst the awaiting boiling oil. er, cha cha glorp

Welcome to IWETHEY!