57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:10 am
@Frank Apisa,
I knew you'd never be able to defend your stupidity.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I know of no convinced communists (not that i've known any communists) who believed that their system constituted slavery. Their line was that they were promoting the dictatorship of the proletariat, in order to put the means of production in the hands of the people. I frankly find that a naïve and implausible claim, but it is just as defensible as the claim that capitalism enslaves the proletariat. You may claim that we lived through `the era of communist slavery,` but just as convincing an argument can be made that for thousands of years we have lived in the era of capitalist slavery.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:30 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I know of no convinced communists (not that i've known any communists)
who believed that their system constituted slavery.
Is the belief of communists the criterion
qua the existence of their infliction of slavery?
Slaves r not held in bondage UNLESS
their master BELIEVES it, Mr. Setanta informs us ??



Setanta wrote:
Their line was that they were promoting the dictatorship of the proletariat,
in order to put the means of production in the hands of the people.
Marx said that.



Setanta wrote:
I frankly find that a naïve and implausible claim, but it is just as defensible as the claim that capitalism enslaves the proletariat. You may claim that we lived through `the era of communist slavery,` but just as convincing an argument can be made that for thousands of years we have lived in the era of capitalist slavery.
Nonsense.
Capitalism is simply the operation of the laws of nature
qua supply and demand; no slavery. Contracts r based on free will.
Potential workers APPLY for jobs from capitalists and thay lament,
when thay DON'T get them. Slavery is inconsistent with VOLUNTARY acts.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You need at least one other person.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:34 am
@spendius,
Y ?

By WHAT criterion is that ??
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I dispute that. I can start a religion for myself tomorrow
and be its Pope, with no followers, keeping it secret.


You need at least one other person. And an adequate ceremonial.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:37 am
@OmSigDAVID,
It's incredible how little you know about how the world works. Workers started trades unions and labor movements because otherwise, their capitalist employers dictated the terms of employment to them, including piece-work, lover wages for women, child labor, no floor on wages and no ceiling on hours. By the use of the blacklist, they assured that any worker who worked for labor organization or objected to the terms of employment would not find work in their grade elsewhere.

You live in fantasy land.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
By the way, the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" was not invented by Marx, but by a gentleman named Weydemeyer, a man who in fact served in the United States Army during our Civil War. One assumes, not unreasonably, that his object was to help to end slavery.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:43 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
conditioned by their polemical prejudices.


Which obviously begs the question of what conditioned the polemical prejudices. I hardly think that prejudices arrive from out of nowhere and the polemics are well publicised and easily parroted.

My theory is that it was the proposition that the standing prick hath no conscience.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:46 am
@spendius,
DAVID wrote:
I dispute that. I can start a religion for myself tomorrow
and be its Pope, with no followers, keeping it secret.
spendius wrote:
You need at least one other person.
The other Person is God.
That 's enuf.



spendius wrote:
And an adequate ceremonial.
As Pope, ex cathedra,
I'll be the judge of what is "adequate" in my private religion.





David
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 10:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
At the simplest level because the word religion derives from the Latin "religare" meaning to bind together. You're talking about a personal idiosyncrasy. As usual.

Try the laws of nature on the ladies.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 11:01 am
Let’s see…Setanta came into this thread to call people stupid, silly, absurd, childish, embarrassingly idiotic, petty, puerile…and to otherwise disparage the intelligence of anyone not agreeing with him.

This must be a day of the week that ends in a “y!”

And he actually delivers a lecture about others being in a childish snit!

A visit by Setanta (by Clement Moore) is such fun. Ya gotta love him. He provides laughs galore.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 11:13 am
I did not at any time say that anyone was in a snit. That's not a term i ever use, although perhaps Frank is fond of using such a term to make baseless accusations in order to attempt to bring his interlocutor into disreptue, rather than to actually address the challenge to his thesis.

This is the post which i made, and about which Frank is now making up quite a few lies:

Quote:
While it is certainly a commonplace that the putative Jesus said to love one's enemies and do good to those who harm you, and leaving aside that we don't even have a reliable basis for asserting that he ever existed--it's more than a little silly to harp on what he did not say. The "scriptures" on which christianity is based are based on versions no earlier than the first half of the fourth century--as much as 300 years after the putative Jesus is thoguht to have lived and died. Given the number of contradictions in those texts, and the historical and geographic absurdities which appear in them, they can hardly be taken for reliable reports of what he did or did not say, if he ever existed. A lot of editing and interpolation can take place in three centuries. It is dicey enough to discuss what he is said to have said, it is the height of absurdity to focus on what one claims he did not say.


Now i didn't say anyone in particular is silly--just that harping on what the putative Jesus is alleged not to have said is silly. To this Frank responded with a sneering insult, and that's all he's dealt in since then. He has signally failed to sustain his thesis, or to support the claim in his signature line. That's because he lacks the skills, in my estimation, and so he deals in insults. If he insults me, he'll get it right back. If he cannot handle being told that an idea of his is silly, he's a delicate flower indeed.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 11:38 am
Well that's you telt Frank. You should have been nice to people, like dear old Setanta, instead of throwing insults left right and centre, to all and sundry.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 11:49 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Well that's you telt Frank. You should have been nice to people, like dear old Setanta, instead of throwing insults left right and centre, to all and sundry.


Ya gotta love him, Izzy. He is clueless about this kind of thing, but ya gotta love him for giving the playground melodrama its chance to see the light of the Internet forum.

This is almost too hilarious for words.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 11:51 am
It is certainly easier for you to claim that you are experiencing hilarity than it is to actually defend your thesis. I suspect that you can't.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 12:13 pm
@Setanta,
When you cross-garteredly strut across the thread like an angry canary, it's remarkably easy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 12:17 pm
Still running from thread to thread looking for opportunities to take a cheap shot? If it's so easy, then defend his thesis, Mr. Rhetorical Genius.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 12:20 pm
@Setanta,
I was on this thread before you started pontificating.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 12:26 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
It is certainly easier for you to claim that you are experiencing hilarity than it is to actually defend your thesis. I suspect that you can't.


Quote my thesis (!) if you can! Try to enjoy the hilarity of the situation if you cannot.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 07:32:16