Christianity debate, anyone? (well, god in general too)

theBlackman on 9/12/2007 at 23:37

Quote Posted by jtr7

[...] Remember the author of Ecclesiastes, who experimented with all the kinds of wealth humanity deems important, and found it all meaningless.[...]

[...]It's not a condoning of slavery, it's an acknowledgement that it is prevalent and a part of human nature, which comes with a promise of recompence.[...]

Re: Ecclesiastes. If you have it all and are not content with yourself and what you are it is meaningless. This has nothing to do with "THE KINGDOM OF GOD" and the attendant "Faith".

As for "slavery", to crave "power" is human nature (for most), but I would not place Slavery in that category. As an offshoot of "power", perhaps. But not a pure issue of "Human nature".

fett on 9/12/2007 at 23:47

Quote Posted by SD

You're right, Paul is also a big fan of slavery. In fact, this most heinous and immoral practice is endorsed right through the Bible. As Jefferson Davis put it: "Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."

Jefferson Davis clearly didn't understand jack fucking shit about 'slavery' in the OT or in Paul's day, and neither do you obviously or you wouldn't make such ridiculous sweeping statements. Extra points deducted if your mind went to Alex Haley for even a fraction of a second.

Is it possible the word 'slave' should have been translated as 'servant' as in PAID or INDENTURED servant? Please tell me you're intelligent enough that you paused, just for a moment, and considered that possibility.

DUMBASS GENTILE NOTICE: The Bible wasn't written in English and the world still doesn't revolve around you.

Spaztick on 10/12/2007 at 00:23

Quote Posted by fett

I was actually going to say something similar to this though I wouldn't have put it in those words, the word often used for "slave" in the New Testament is δοῦλος (doulos) or παῖς (pais):

Though [Doulos] is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that
Quote:
“‘servant' for ‘slave' is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times... in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished.” - (BDAG 260 s.v. 1)
The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος) in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force. In addition, the parallel passage in Matt 8:6 uses the Greek term παῖς (pais), to refer to the centurion's slave. This was a term often used of a slave who was regarded with some degree of affection, possibly a personal servant.

Hence it's not a slave that was arrested or kidnapped and forced into slavery but an indentured servant or servant hired by someone. Indentured servant is probably the closest word we have to "doulos" in modern English.

jtr7 on 10/12/2007 at 00:25

Sorry, I forgot to mention Joseph and all his trials, too. Millennia before the musical, of course.

Vanity, all is vanity... The connection to the kingdom of heaven and faith is that we humans think accumulation of wealth--far beyond necessity, and not just for our children--is important, soooo frikkin' important, and we neglect the importance of and lose our souls, regardless. No matter how content one is with all their wealth or themselves, contentment don't mean diddly on Judgment Day.
Pride comes before a fall.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
One cannot serve God and wealth.

"Slavery" is connected to "power" well enough, and it's still rampant today, only more underground. I don't see such a separation. There are plenty o' humans who believe they have a right to enslave others. It's commonly understood that many Bosses often believe they own their employees, expecting more from them than they compensate for, expecting work to cintinue off the clock. Humans didn't come up with slavery (animals do it, too, naturally), but we attached money to the idea, and a multitude of justifications for it. For some slaves, they go/went along with it because it kept them alive, others have been/are living a nightmare.

Tocky on 10/12/2007 at 01:12

I think the part of the bible which freaked me most and set a scism in my young mind was when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. The sunday school teacher said he sent down an angel and stopped him and later gave him all mannner of compensation. And then she smiled sweetly as if that had made it alright.

I wasn't able to articulate it then but to know that God was like a vain deranged girlfriend demanding you murder a family member to prove you didn't love them better was so wrong on so many levels that about all I could think to say to God in prayer was "please don't make me do anything bad". That he never intended a follow through makes it no less cruel and conceited.

If there were a God I would not trust any man on earth, living or dead, to take down what he said without the bias and filter of his own mind. And if there is then I pray he is not as he was portrayed in the bible.

jtr7 on 10/12/2007 at 01:44

If you trust God, believe God, have faith in God, believe God loves you, believe God knows more than you about anything, believe God is not comprehendible by a mere human mind, believe God is good, and--get this--believe God keeps His promises, including the one where He said:

Ge 17:19 "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him."

Ge 17:21 "But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year."

Then you might believe it would all work out in the end. Context.

--------------------------------
If one's opinion of the bible is based on Sunday School, one hasn't the necessary insight. It's like believing that only two of every animal were taken aboard the ark, following Noah in one long line; or Satan is red and has a goatee and a pitchfork and is working his day job in Hell, gleefully torturing lost, burning souls, etc.

theBlackman on 10/12/2007 at 01:54

JT, "the servant (slave), is worth his hire". But as a boss, you do, in effect "own" the production efforts of your employee, servant, etc. If they do not produce per instruction and pay, then you dismiss them. "Feather-bedding" may be all well and good for the employee, but not the employer.

So, as a boss, you OWN THE TIME (service results -ne body producing it), YOU ARE PAYING FOR. And, the employed OWE YOU THE REAL RESULTS of that payment.

jtr7 on 10/12/2007 at 01:58

According to the agreement made upon hiring, not outside the bounds of those agreements, and not adding chore upon chore upon chore until it is not possible by any means or by any human being to meet the goals the boss requires. Nor when the the requirements result, predictably, in injury, and the payment is meager. Compensation should, in fact, compensate the employee for their time and effort, not leave a growing deficit (a declining of health, emotional distress, etc.). I've heard of companies where the employees are happy with their relationship to the company. I've never worked for one, although, I've enjoyed a few weeks here and there where a job was a smooth running machine, until the boss got a bright idea, and no one's been happy since. I watched bosses quit, get fired, get sued, get relocated (the sexist/racist ones always get relocated before the offended parties sue), or move up, if there's a chain-of-command and they can move up.

I experienced, for two months, what it was like to work hard, and love it, and have my boss rooting for me, and I was able to please most of my customers most of the time. It spoiled me. Then it all went to crap. I used to enjoy a job well-done. Now we're lucky if we can even finish a single task, let alone, done well.

There's the ideal situation--the way many of us expect it or wish it to be--and there's real life.

theBlackman on 10/12/2007 at 02:05

That situation is yours (the employee's ) to cure. Granted, many don't have the fortitude to do so, but that's thier individual problem. If the boss is such a idiot, and the employee is such as to put up with it, they too are an idiot.

I hear what you intend to say, but, if the employee accepts, without demure, the additional conditions, then any boss will continue to attempt to get more work for less "Buck". That's not the attitude of a "Slaver", but a business man.

Buy low, sell high. Get the most for your dollar.

jtr7 on 10/12/2007 at 02:33

It's the modern slavery. It's slavery modified. It works within the laws, mostly. The employees do stand up, and are "constructively discharged", but most of us stay for the benefits, which the employee's children also benefit from. Many stay to see their kids through college, then leave. Many stay until their health fails them. Many are illiterate. Most of us do not know how to speak in the language of a businessman. Arizona is a "right to work" state. Unions are quashed. I've talked to everybody up the chain, save the top dog, 'cause frankly, I don't know how to speak to a man who justifies the crap and hires poeple to tell him how crappy it is and why, and does nothing, but hires yet another person to tell him about the crap. The higher the position on the chain-of-command, the higher that person's credibility. Literally 168 employees told a hired auditor what the problems were, and our boss dismissed the results, and he was believed. It is not our fault that we are not all businessmen. Most humans are not. We have our talents. Too often, the businessmen are exploiters of those they consider weak. It's our fault we want health insurance, and to see the kids through school. We are not all capable of learning the same, being the same, doing the same. Some are born with an easy grasp of business concepts. Some have to learn, but it's not a struggle. Some have to work their asses off just to learn. Some can never learn, but they are naturals at other things. Then there are circumstances that remove a key element of what a person needs, and it's over for them, temporarily, perhaps forever, until they find another part of themselves that still may have nothing to do with money, but it's worthwhile.

Without orators who know business and law, perhaps better than the employers (who's actions are not always beneficial to themselves), and without a revolution, we are at a loss. It took seven years of stubbornness on the part of the employees who opted to stay, to see a change. The change is not good at all, it's more of a respite. The damage is done. The consequences are locked in and unfolding, despite our warnings nine years hence. It pleases us not at all to say "we told you so." The cost for the physical repairs on the crumbling infrastructure are astronomical. The rest cannot be repaired.

And of course, nothing will ever be done because "This is just how it is. Life isn't fair. Get over it. Quit complaining. Read 'The Secret', by Rhonda Byrne...and get the DVD, too. Nevermind that it's nothing new, or secret, and will not work for everybody. Don't tell me about the billions of people that disagree with me because I have an insular mind. Don't pay attention to the fact that there are trillions of products--legally sold and illegally sold, including people--to make people feel good, temporarily, with side-effects, but give good feelings or even takes feelings away. Just don't complain about the things that make you buy them. Don't complain that life brings pain, and people willfully bring unnecessary pain. Complaining is worse than all the compensatory and illicit things people do to hide the pain. Nevermind the lies and deceit we put on so nobody hears a complaint. Instead of doing something about THE ROOT problem. Why don't you spend money you don't have and move somewhere else where the grass is greener?"

I'm sorry, D.:(

I believe it needs to be understood that there's a whole different way of looking at things that's just as "real" as the other side, and I'm far from alone, except for my methods of expression.

Thank God I'm quite done ranting. I think I've regained my appetite for popcorn, again. (crawls away)