The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
861

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But at least acknowledge your purposely ignoring the point of my posts.
[/quote]

Other differences of opinion aside, I am not. You know how much I like you man; I’m not trying to fuck with your argument. I’m trying to find it, and having a hard time because you seem both to

  1. Take issue with what I say about the Bible.

And

  1. Agree with me.

Look, when I argue here, I argue against the likes of Push. Say what you will about his religion – I certainly fight with him over it – but he is internally consistent. He has something for me to grab hold of and fight, and I have something against which he can put himself.

By contrast, it is impossible to argue against the mainstream, “well it’s all just so nice to go to church and listen to the stories, and there must be some undefinable metaphorical Truth in there somewhere” kind of religiosity. So, when I talk about believers and the Bible," I mean “real believers and the Bible as it is understood by them.”

862

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…And it’ll sure seem a lot like slaves were all voluntarily enslaved in Biblical times. Funny that they don’t mention enslavement’s devolving on children born to slaves. (Gamliel Shmalo, “Orthodox Approaches to Biblical Slavery,” The Torah U-Madda Journal, Vol. 16 [2012], Page 3: Among many others.)
[/quote]

What would the child of a slave be but a slave? If Man A elects to become Master B’s slave, and Man A then sires a child(Child A), should the child be kicked off of Master B’s property and separated from his slave parents? Is it reasonable to expect that Child A will elect to leave Master B once he becomes an adult despite having no possessions and nowhere to go? Maybe he will, especially if Master B is cruel, and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 answers how he is to be treated: 15"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16"He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him. [/quote]

Right: As I said, I’m well aware that you can twist yourselves into pretzels in order to justify a bunch of stupid things written in your book.

By the way, are you under the impression that all Biblical slaves were so voluntarily? Is this what you think?[/quote]

No, slavery was also a form of restitution(as it is today, in America…only here, slavery is only permitted as restitution to the State), and enslaving pagans was permitted. (I am not a Bible scholar or anything, so it’s possible that I’m forgetting some; you can point out anything that I’m forgetting, preferably without an “AHA! Caught you!”-type response.)

863

Most critics of slavery in the Bible only see things from the perspective of a non-believer and refuse to even consider the perspective that the book is true. If true, the eternal life after this one is infinitely more important than anything else. If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence.

If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves. If you honestly consider a Christian perspective the totals of teachings on this life can only be evaluated in their result when considering the outcome in the next. Most people attacking teachings do so by ignoring what is the thing that truly matters if the teachings were true.

It is actually an interesting dichotomy that Christians do so much to relieve the poor and persecuted when they are so often taught as blessed and used as example by Jesus. The real Christian argument (as I see it) against something like slavery is that it is bad for the slave owner.

864

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Not only that, but the prohibition on kidnapping in Exodus 21:16 did not prohibit the Hebrew from buying slaves who may or may not have been kidnapped or captured, only from kidnapping a man and either keeping or selling him.
[/quote]

Indeed. A little like blood diamonds: “Yes, it may have come here by way of a chain of injustice, horror, and pain in direct sight of which I would cower and whine, but here it is in this shiny store, and there’s nothing wrong with shopping in the shiny stores, so I’m going to go ahead and grab it.”

865

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Most critics of slavery in the Bible only see things from the perspective of a non-believer and refuse to even consider the perspective that the book is true. If true, the eternal life after this one is infinitely more important than anything else. If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves. If you honestly consider a Christian perspective the totals of teachings on this life can only be evaluated in their result when considering the outcome in the next. Most people attacking teachings do so by ignoring what is the thing that truly matters if the teachings were true.

It is actually an interesting dichotomy that Christians do so much to relieve the poor and persecuted when they are so often taught as blessed and used as example by Jesus. The real Christian argument (as I see it) against something like slavery is that it is bad for the slave owner.
[/quote]

So then all suffering in this life is OK?

866

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves.
[/quote]

I’m sure most plantation owners in antebellum South Carolina would agree.

867

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Most critics of slavery in the Bible only see things from the perspective of a non-believer and refuse to even consider the perspective that the book is true. If true, the eternal life after this one is infinitely more important than anything else. If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves. If you honestly consider a Christian perspective the totals of teachings on this life can only be evaluated in their result when considering the outcome in the next. Most people attacking teachings do so by ignoring what is the thing that truly matters if the teachings were true.

It is actually an interesting dichotomy that Christians do so much to relieve the poor and persecuted when they are so often taught as blessed and used as example by Jesus. The real Christian argument (as I see it) against something like slavery is that it is bad for the slave owner.
[/quote]

But this ignores the fact that the Bible often concerns itself with what its authors saw as mistreatment of others. Examples abound: I can’t go collecting evidence right now.

So, either slavery is not mistreatment and, as your last paragraph astutely limns, is not iniquitous from the slaveowner’s perspective, or god made a mistake.

Or, the third option: he works “in mysterious ways.” Which is the granddaddy of thought-terminating cliches.

868

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Most critics of slavery in the Bible only see things from the perspective of a non-believer and refuse to even consider the perspective that the book is true. If true, the eternal life after this one is infinitely more important than anything else. If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves. If you honestly consider a Christian perspective the totals of teachings on this life can only be evaluated in their result when considering the outcome in the next. Most people attacking teachings do so by ignoring what is the thing that truly matters if the teachings were true.

It is actually an interesting dichotomy that Christians do so much to relieve the poor and persecuted when they are so often taught as blessed and used as example by Jesus. The real Christian argument (as I see it) against something like slavery is that it is bad for the slave owner.
[/quote]

So then all suffering in this life is OK?[/quote]

No. As is evidenced by the countless commands in the Bible to help the poor. But, Christians can also believe that all things can ultimately work to good. And if you read my post those that cause the suffering and even those that allow it can loose in the end.

869

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves.
[/quote]

I’m sure most plantation owners in antebellum South Carolina would agree.[/quote]

Sure, if you cut out the last part of my post.

870

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Most critics of slavery in the Bible only see things from the perspective of a non-believer and refuse to even consider the perspective that the book is true. If true, the eternal life after this one is infinitely more important than anything else. If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves. If you honestly consider a Christian perspective the totals of teachings on this life can only be evaluated in their result when considering the outcome in the next. Most people attacking teachings do so by ignoring what is the thing that truly matters if the teachings were true.

It is actually an interesting dichotomy that Christians do so much to relieve the poor and persecuted when they are so often taught as blessed and used as example by Jesus. The real Christian argument (as I see it) against something like slavery is that it is bad for the slave owner.
[/quote]

But this ignores the fact that the Bible often concerns itself with what its authors saw as mistreatment of others. Examples abound: I can’t go collecting evidence right now.

So, either slavery is not mistreatment and, as your last paragraph astutely limns, is not iniquitous from the slaveowner’s perspective, or god made a mistake.

Or, the third option: he works “in mysterious ways.” Which is the granddaddy of thought-terminating cliches.[/quote]

Really? I’d say it concerns itself with the mistreat-ers and mistreated, which is a very different thing.

871

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And if you read my post those that cause the suffering and even those that allow it can loose in the end.[/quote]

Isn’t winning and losing defined solely by whether–before the mortal end–the person accepts JC as their personal savior? It seems to me that this is the only earthly action that actually matters in the long run, if we look at the book from the perspective that it is true.

872

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

I didn’t say man was entitled.[/quote]

You certainly implied it.

Which is fine. Also evident by holding God subservient to man in all your rebuttals.

lol. You “feel like” I’m “making shit up” because you refuse to even acknowledge, even for conversation purposes, the possibility of God and what that would mean.

I’m not making up anything. And faith is the cornerstone of any religion. That you are having trouble with those as conversational topics isn’t surprising due to your inability to imagine an alternative possibility than the one you have faith in already.

Your question at the end, you answer it before you even ask it.

This is fucking laughable. If you honestly believe this, and it isn’t some cheap fallacy, I take back my earlier assessment of your apparent thoughtfulness and intelligence.

873

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And if you read my post those that cause the suffering and even those that allow it can loose in the end.[/quote]

Isn’t winning and losing defined solely by whether–before the mortal end–the person accepts JC as their personal savior? It seems to me that this is the only earthly action that actually matters in the long run, if we look at the book from the perspective that it is true. [/quote]

Then we’ve read different books. To believe is to obey, to obey is to act. It is a false dichotomy that belief alone gets you in because belief without action is impossible.

Edit: for examply: People who profess belief in gravity don’t casually walk off cliffs not expecting to fall.

874

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

I didn’t say man was entitled.[/quote]

You certainly implied it.

Which is fine. Also evident by holding God subservient to man in all your rebuttals.

lol. You “feel like” I’m “making shit up” because you refuse to even acknowledge, even for conversation purposes, the possibility of God and what that would mean.

I’m not making up anything. And faith is the cornerstone of any religion. That you are having trouble with those as conversational topics isn’t surprising due to your inability to imagine an alternative possibility than the one you have faith in already.

Your question at the end, you answer it before you even ask it.

This is fucking laughable. If you honestly believe this, and it isn’t some cheap fallacy, I take back my earlier assessment of your apparent thoughtfulness and intelligence. [/quote]

Are you saying that god made us fallible or are you saying that god gave us a message that we cannot understand so that we would be fallible in it’s interpretation?

875

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Most critics of slavery in the Bible only see things from the perspective of a non-believer and refuse to even consider the perspective that the book is true. If true, the eternal life after this one is infinitely more important than anything else. If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves. If you honestly consider a Christian perspective the totals of teachings on this life can only be evaluated in their result when considering the outcome in the next. Most people attacking teachings do so by ignoring what is the thing that truly matters if the teachings were true.

It is actually an interesting dichotomy that Christians do so much to relieve the poor and persecuted when they are so often taught as blessed and used as example by Jesus. The real Christian argument (as I see it) against something like slavery is that it is bad for the slave owner.
[/quote]

But this ignores the fact that the Bible often concerns itself with what its authors saw as mistreatment of others. Examples abound: I can’t go collecting evidence right now.

So, either slavery is not mistreatment and, as your last paragraph astutely limns, is not iniquitous from the slaveowner’s perspective, or god made a mistake.

Or, the third option: he works “in mysterious ways.” Which is the granddaddy of thought-terminating cliches.[/quote]

Really? I’d say it concerns itself with the mistreat-ers and mistreated, which is a very different thing.[/quote]

I’m not sure how it’s different.

God got talking on the subject of slavery and failed to mention that its perpetrators are by definition mistreaters and its sufferers are by definition mistreated.

That suggests to me either that god is prone to mistakes or that he is not good. Either way, he is not god.

876

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Most critics of slavery in the Bible only see things from the perspective of a non-believer and refuse to even consider the perspective that the book is true. If true, the eternal life after this one is infinitely more important than anything else. If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves. If you honestly consider a Christian perspective the totals of teachings on this life can only be evaluated in their result when considering the outcome in the next. Most people attacking teachings do so by ignoring what is the thing that truly matters if the teachings were true.

It is actually an interesting dichotomy that Christians do so much to relieve the poor and persecuted when they are so often taught as blessed and used as example by Jesus. The real Christian argument (as I see it) against something like slavery is that it is bad for the slave owner.
[/quote]

But this ignores the fact that the Bible often concerns itself with what its authors saw as mistreatment of others. Examples abound: I can’t go collecting evidence right now.

So, either slavery is not mistreatment and, as your last paragraph astutely limns, is not iniquitous from the slaveowner’s perspective, or god made a mistake.

Or, the third option: he works “in mysterious ways.” Which is the granddaddy of thought-terminating cliches.[/quote]

Really? I’d say it concerns itself with the mistreat-ers and mistreated, which is a very different thing.[/quote]

I’m not sure how it’s different.

God got talking on the subject of slavery and failed to mention that its perpetrators are by definition mistreaters and its sufferers are by definition mistreated.

That suggests to me either that god is prone to mistakes or that he is not good. Either way, he is not god.[/quote]

That’s true as long as you first assume the book is wrong and this life is all that exists.

877

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’m trying to find it, and having a hard time because you seem both to

  1. Take issue with what I say about the Bible.

And

  1. Agree with me.[/quote]

I know. It’s sort of a bitch on my end too.

I’m really new to this whole being able to come to terms with believing thing. It’s been a life long struggle really.

[quote]
By contrast, it is impossible to argue against the mainstream, “well it’s all just so nice to go to church and listen to the stories, and there must be some undefinable metaphorical Truth in there somewhere” kind of religiosity. [/quote]

Why? I found coming to terms with that being a very likely case to be one of the turning points in my understanding and comfort with God.

878

708×1594 178 KB

The Bible for people with short attention spans.

879

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And if you read my post those that cause the suffering and even those that allow it can loose in the end.[/quote]

Isn’t winning and losing defined solely by whether–before the mortal end–the person accepts JC as their personal savior? It seems to me that this is the only earthly action that actually matters in the long run, if we look at the book from the perspective that it is true. [/quote]

Then we’ve read different books. To believe is to obey, to obey is to act. It is a false dichotomy that belief alone gets you in because belief without action is impossible.

Edit: for examply: People who profess belief in gravity don’t casually walk off cliffs not expecting to fall.[/quote]

Ok. Maybe I’m missing something.

Slave owner owns slaves his whole life and treats people in hideous fashion, but near the end of his life finds god and accepts JC as his personal savior. Saved: True or False.

Slave is a slave his whole life and never accepts JC. In all other respects he conducts himself consistent with the commands of the Bible in the way he treats other men. Not saved: True or False.

880

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Most critics of slavery in the Bible only see things from the perspective of a non-believer and refuse to even consider the perspective that the book is true. If true, the eternal life after this one is infinitely more important than anything else. If you can be a slave and be happy ever after, or be free and rich but suffer for ever after, being a slave is better for the slave in the aggregate total of suffering and pleasure in their existence. If you believe in Christianity even things like slavery can be worked to ultimate good, even for the slaves. If you honestly consider a Christian perspective the totals of teachings on this life can only be evaluated in their result when considering the outcome in the next. Most people attacking teachings do so by ignoring what is the thing that truly matters if the teachings were true.

It is actually an interesting dichotomy that Christians do so much to relieve the poor and persecuted when they are so often taught as blessed and used as example by Jesus. The real Christian argument (as I see it) against something like slavery is that it is bad for the slave owner.
[/quote]

But this ignores the fact that the Bible often concerns itself with what its authors saw as mistreatment of others. Examples abound: I can’t go collecting evidence right now.

So, either slavery is not mistreatment and, as your last paragraph astutely limns, is not iniquitous from the slaveowner’s perspective, or god made a mistake.

Or, the third option: he works “in mysterious ways.” Which is the granddaddy of thought-terminating cliches.[/quote]

Really? I’d say it concerns itself with the mistreat-ers and mistreated, which is a very different thing.[/quote]

I’m not sure how it’s different.

God got talking on the subject of slavery and failed to mention that its perpetrators are by definition mistreaters and its sufferers are by definition mistreated.

That suggests to me either that god is prone to mistakes or that he is not good. Either way, he is not god.[/quote]

That’s true as long as you first assume the book is wrong and this life is all that exists.[/quote]

Which is why I said “suggests to me”: because I have really fantastic reason to assume exactly that, or rather a set of reasons which I’ve articulated many times hereabouts.

But even without that sentence, the point must stand: god is concerned with the mistreaters and the mistreated, and yet, on the subject of slavery, he doesn’t think it important to do much more than set some ground rules. So, an ominbenevolent being has no problem with slavery. Surely we shouldn’t either.