Thanks. I actually like finding that. It is not quite a smoking gun since it is in a parable about God's relation to 'us', but I will definitely use it in arguments against Christians around the issue of slavery.
Why do theists associate with non-theists?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
In a sense I am with you on that issue, but that's not the same issue. But given that Jesus thought is was a good analogy, I think a Christian would feel justified in beating his servants based on this parable. Servents, not slaves, but....
if you can beat them we are at least dealing with indentured servants and a disgusting practice.
Or having decided that, taking this noble stand, you get to meet the real God instead of just accepting the Demiurge.Then you would be a slave to the Devil... that's worse.
@Pineal --
So far as I'm aware(and I could be grossly misinformed on this), the only types of "servants" they had at the time were indentured servants and slaves(which seems to me to be a negligible distinction). Beyond that though, the fact that Jesus said that "not one jot or tittle of the law" was to be ignored, and given that the law explicitly condones slavery(including the selling of one's daughter/s into slavery in order to settle one's debt), we can take that as an implicit endorsement of slavery.
In fact there's plenty in the bible, from the lips of both Jesus and god no less, to justify treating nonbelievers like shit, or even killing them(god commanded this explicitly).
@Pincho --
No that would be better. At least the devil didn't create me: a thinking, feeling, sentient being, for the expressed purpose of being a slave who's only purpose in life is to praise him. In most ethical systems, the ones that don't make a mockery of the word, god is infinitely worse than the devil.
So far as I'm aware(and I could be grossly misinformed on this), the only types of "servants" they had at the time were indentured servants and slaves(which seems to me to be a negligible distinction). Beyond that though, the fact that Jesus said that "not one jot or tittle of the law" was to be ignored, and given that the law explicitly condones slavery(including the selling of one's daughter/s into slavery in order to settle one's debt), we can take that as an implicit endorsement of slavery.
In fact there's plenty in the bible, from the lips of both Jesus and god no less, to justify treating nonbelievers like shit, or even killing them(god commanded this explicitly).
@Pincho --
No that would be better. At least the devil didn't create me: a thinking, feeling, sentient being, for the expressed purpose of being a slave who's only purpose in life is to praise him. In most ethical systems, the ones that don't make a mockery of the word, god is infinitely worse than the devil.
I know God gets pretty clear on this, but Jesus? Do you know a quote where he says it is OK to kill or treat unbelievers as crap?
Also the part about not breaking the law.
@Pineal --
Jesus said that the law should be upheld in full, the law includes killing unbelievers(stoning them to death and burning the town they lived in). It might be an implicit statement rather than an explicit statement, but the statement is there none the less.
Jesus said that the law should be upheld in full, the law includes killing unbelievers(stoning them to death and burning the town they lived in). It might be an implicit statement rather than an explicit statement, but the statement is there none the less.
I always thought he meant religious Law, though perhaps this is part of religious law. IOW I thought he was primarily referring to the 10 commandments. Not that I know why I reached this conclusion. I did that years ago. But, in any case, his interpretation of the 10 commandments should have made it pretty hard to kill. And, of course, it did not.
OK. Then he is contradicting, at the very least, the spirit of his intervention with the adulterous woman AND the whole beam in your own eye AND the way he modifies the 10 commandments making it even harder to kill AND turn the other cheek. This is helpful to know should I get into certain discussions again. Thanks.
Last edited:
Since I'm brand new to the forums, thought I'd weigh in. My preference is to spend time with intelligent people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. If they will respect my faith, I'll more than happily respect theirs.
I'm a pastor, and actually, I'd RATHER spend time with an intelligent atheist any day than a narrow-minded parishioner, no matter how devout they might be. I love discussing evolution (natural selection for me, with God in the background tweaking the genetic code every now and again), cosmology (Big Bang unless evidence begins to move away from this), political theory, and other cool topics. That isn't always easy for me among the very religious (in some circles, at least).
Many religious people seem incapable of interacting on any equal footing with an atheist or other non-believer. When some do interact, it's not authentic, because the religious person wants to convert the atheist from their "wrong" way of thinking. Or believers want to argue their own views about a topic and for many, this means there's no room for any dissent from their views nor any real realtionship either.
The good news is that there are as many types of Christians and other spiritual seekers as there are any other group, and some I've found are really open and welcoming of people from any background or viewpoint.
For me, I do hold the special place of Jesus in the world, but I can't prove he was so special. I hold this as an article of faith, just like I believe in the deepest part of my being that there is an ineffable force collectively referred to as God, even though I cannot possibly offer you any hard proof of this. Again, it's an article of my personal faith.
In my experience, love and care for others is the truest expression of God's life within the life of the world. I'd rather show others some kindness and some respect for their opinions, than try to convert them or get them to say the "right words" or "pray" some magical prayer that will supposedly make them okie dokey with the "Big Guy Upstairs". To me, that view is nonsense and I'd rather just try to live out my faith quietly, trying to do good. At lease, that's my take on the whole thiest/atheist dance.
I'm a pastor, and actually, I'd RATHER spend time with an intelligent atheist any day than a narrow-minded parishioner, no matter how devout they might be. I love discussing evolution (natural selection for me, with God in the background tweaking the genetic code every now and again), cosmology (Big Bang unless evidence begins to move away from this), political theory, and other cool topics. That isn't always easy for me among the very religious (in some circles, at least).
Many religious people seem incapable of interacting on any equal footing with an atheist or other non-believer. When some do interact, it's not authentic, because the religious person wants to convert the atheist from their "wrong" way of thinking. Or believers want to argue their own views about a topic and for many, this means there's no room for any dissent from their views nor any real realtionship either.
The good news is that there are as many types of Christians and other spiritual seekers as there are any other group, and some I've found are really open and welcoming of people from any background or viewpoint.
For me, I do hold the special place of Jesus in the world, but I can't prove he was so special. I hold this as an article of faith, just like I believe in the deepest part of my being that there is an ineffable force collectively referred to as God, even though I cannot possibly offer you any hard proof of this. Again, it's an article of my personal faith.
In my experience, love and care for others is the truest expression of God's life within the life of the world. I'd rather show others some kindness and some respect for their opinions, than try to convert them or get them to say the "right words" or "pray" some magical prayer that will supposedly make them okie dokey with the "Big Guy Upstairs". To me, that view is nonsense and I'd rather just try to live out my faith quietly, trying to do good. At lease, that's my take on the whole thiest/atheist dance.
Your consent or lack thereof in this matter is irrelevant.
God is in charge, and even if you were to go to hell, you would still be God's slave.
Most Americans know only the kidnapped African form of slavery. In ancient times, slavery took other forms. Some people sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts (better than getting your legs broken or worse, if you know what I mean). Enemy soldiers were sold into slavery (better than being summarily executed), and they went into war knowing that they might end up as slaves. I suppose people such as alcoholics, who couldn't run their own lives, would stay clean and sober or suffer a beating as a slave (think of it as a [very] primitive substance dependency recovery program).
Several biblical writings by Paul do urge slaves to be good slaves. Generally, Christ did not promote social revolution, just spiritual revolution. So, for example, Christ told his followers to pay their taxes, obey the laws, etc.
This passage is lifted out of a parable. where the master is God and the slave is a Christian. The Christians who don't prepare for Christ's return, well ... He'll make sure they suffer the consequences.
Yes, I pointed this out. But if Jesus thinks it is an effective analogy, it means he thinks his listeners will accept as given the good sense in a master beating his slaves. If Jesus was against humans enslaving other humans, he would not choose this analogy. It would be in his own estimation a weak parable.
Let alone how Christians in practice will use the parable.
But this makes it sound like morality DOES in fact change, an idea Christians seem to have a lot of trouble with - very, very often at least. Would today's Christians put up with banks sending out goons to break people's legs or take them into indentured servitude (old style)? I doubt it. If this is bad now, then it was bad then, from God's perspective.
This was one of the most damaging things Jesus did. Make a split between the secular and the holy. This allowed governments and powerful people to do untold terrible things. The religions that think of God as not immanent and the important things and beyond this earthly realm tended to destroy other religions and through this created tremendous damage.
yeah, that's what some people say. But are they the kind of people you would let take care of your children?
Physical punishment does little to actually produce lasting behavior change.
And spiritual revolution is to be accomplished by beating people?
Really? Any proof of that?
Yes. This is what gives Christianity its air of martrydom+victimhood.
This is one of the main reasons why Christianity doesn't appeal to me.
Not only that. That split into the holy and the secular also trivializes religion and human life altogether.
Note: "split into the holy and the secular". I do not think that this distinction is a given, or natural, or inherent. I think it is an imposed distinction.
But this way, those religions are also destroying their own survival basis. The split into the holy and the secular leads to an unwise use of natural resources and it's only a matter of time before the environment cannot support the human population anymore.