Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@izzythepush,

I have not always seen eye to eye with Setanta izzy but I must say I can't see all that much wrong with what he is saying on this thread. It doesn't really matter whether Jesus was real or putative to the gist of what he says. Or to anything else for that matter.

The only things that matter are the motives behind the support or attacks on Christianity. The words can be found by either side easily enough. They have all been written long ago by, and many times over, on behalf of both positions and they are mostly rubbish.

One side wishes to make the relationship with women easy and convenient and the other prefers a romantic aura to surround it which, as you will know from our literature, means male sacrifice. Swimming a crocodile infested river for example. Or jousting for the scented handkerchief. Darwinian type ****.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I have not always seen eye to eye with Setanta izzy but I must say I can't see all that much wrong with what he is saying on this thread.

What about the way he's saying it?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I can handle that.

1 Reply

@spendius,

What about the strutting and the preening?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

What about the way he's saying it?

Izzy, all I can say about the way Setanta is saying what he is saying in this thread is...

...that pretty much is the way Setanta says anything he ever says in damn near every thread.

Setanta seems never to be happier than when he is debasing or demeaning someone with whom he is engaged in discussion. He throws out words like stupid, silly, absurd, childish, idiotic, petty, and puerile to the point where one has to wonder if he is practicing to write a thesaurus. He regularly disparages the intelligence of anyone not agreeing with him...and seems constantly to be patting himself on the back.

Allow me to give him his due. He is very intelligent (in the “he knows stuff sense”) and his command of history and his ability to put historical perspectives into context are second to none.

But he has the social skills of a komodo dragon on drugs. He seldom contributes without leaving the impression that he is less interested in actually sharing useful wisdom...than in saying, “I know a lot.”

And his constant sense of indignation at “insulting” or smarmy remarks sent his way, considering the many he sends out to others, is laughable beyond measure. I actually laugh out-loud when I see him doing it…the indignant flourishes of a one-dimensional silent movie heavy.

If you can, enjoy what Setanta sends our way. It gets easier and easier to do as time goes on. I know I now enjoy it to the fullest.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

What about the strutting and the preening?

No problem.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

At the simplest level because the word religion derives from the Latin "religare" meaning to bind together.

It has been represented to me
that it derives from Latin for "tie back"
(like a chick ties back her hair into a new configuration)
rather than what u allege. I am not a Latin scholar.

David

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It's incredible how little you know about how the world works.

I don 't need u to bring me news of these historical facts,
but u misinterpret them with your tacit implications.

Setanta wrote:

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.

Tho I don 't dispute these historical facts,
I take exception to the modern, leftist optics thru which u vu them.
Capitalists sometimes offered jobs to people who applied for them.
Both sides had full freedom of contract. Each side was free
to reject a contract whose terms were not to his satisfaction.
Each side coud exploit the weaknesses of the other party
to the potential contract. Each side SHUD do that; its good business.

U appear to tacitly imply that the capitalist, potential employer
shud have been more charitable toward the indigent job applicants.
I don 't agree (tho on a purely Individual, and purely VOLUNTARY basis, generosity can be FUN,
especially if the donee-beneficiary does not expect it).

Each party to the contract simply got the best deal that was possible.
There is nothing rong with that.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Re: spendius (Post 5113709)
spendius wrote:

Quote:
At the simplest level because the word religion derives from the Latin "religare" meaning to bind together.
It has been represented to me
that it derives from Latin for "tie back"
(like a chick ties back her hair into a new configuration)
rather than what u allege. I am not a Latin scholar.

The etymology is a bit ambiguous.

religion (n.)
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem(nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" +legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300. Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=religion&searchmode=none

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

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.

NO, no; that is incorrect; untruthful.
I remember that several years ago,
I had u on Ignore because of your egregious, disgraceful, verbal incivilities
toward innocent members of this forum, but someone QUOTED u, such that I saw it.

I remember u describing me to someone
as my being "in a snit" and that I had,
for that reason, kept u on Ignore.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I am not a Latin scholar.

I know that Dave. It isn't something I expect you are concerned about.

1 Reply

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

I am not a Latin scholar.

spendius wrote:

I know that Dave. It isn't something I expect you are concerned about.

I shud be more concerned with getting space in a cemetery.
My life is behind me.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Hey izzy--did you see the feechewer on Newsnight about the US being "ungovernable".

Two American intellectuals, no doubt chosen carefully, agreed, and offered some rigmarole that boiled down to the problem being highlighted on this thread and many others.

Namely, as I have been saying, that 310 million people who all firmly believe that anything they say is a fact proved by the evidence of them having declared it to be so, are ungovernable.

Whether being ungovernable is a good thing or not is another debate. My reading of the Constitution is that it was intended to produce that condition so that the legal profession is abled to cream everybody's arse.

If I was President I would throw the USSC into the Potomac on a frosty night.

4 Replies

@spendius,

I mean to say izz. Fancy erecting an argument on the "etymology being a bit ambiguous".

0 Replies

@spendius,

Individual FREEDOM from government interference
is the most important consideration.

We need to keep government: "weak, starved and inoffensive" blessings be unto Heinlein.

David

0 Replies

@spendius,

I was a ******* pleb, but aren't we all nowadays, and watched Would I Lie To You on BBC1. Don't be too harsh, I was watching with my 20 year old daughter, and she gets pissed off with the amount of news/documentaries I watch. There has to be a bit of give and take.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I was a ******* pleb, but aren't we all nowadays,

What do you mean by you were a ******* pleb? Are you suggesting that you are something different than a pleb today?

I myself see nothing wrong with being a pleb but I do have to admit that it is a new word to me so I may not be understanding you correctly.

Quote:

, I was watching with my 20 year old daughter,

Damn you must be an old man. Laughing

Just kidding Izzy, I myself do not see me lasting more than thirty years. As I am 46

Quote:

she gets pissed off with the amount of news/documentaries I watch

If you were to be intellectually honest about this would it not be in in the interest of your family that you do what yo do so that you can be the most informed and share this information with your descendents?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

This is rich . . . i won't quote my post again, but it did not demean anyone. You introduced that in your response to a post which challenged the thesis, without insulting anyone. You lack rhetorical skills, and you respond to your inability to handle criticism with insult and sneers. In essesce, you atart these things,and then attempt to blame me for them.

You have still not addressed the failures of your thesis, and you continue to attempt to make out that you're a victim of personal attacks, when in fact you were the instigator of that aspect of the exchange.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

. . . You lack rhetorical skills, and
you respond to your inability to handle criticism with insult and sneers. . . .[emfasis added]

Its richly ironic to hear this from Mr. Setanta !

David

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

No, what is richly ironic is that i posted a comment on this topic which did not contain any personal invective, Frank responded to with sneering insults, and not a word about the topic, and claims that i am incapable of discussing a topic without insults--and you people lap up that bullshit as though Frank were some kind of oracle.

2 Replies

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know