The Bathroom Wall

With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.

32518 Comments

There is a God!

And he is a plumber. The Bathroom has been flushed.

Thank you Reed.

Great!

Course, that still leaves what happens when the new plumbing acquires a big drip…

Wait, what am I saying?

Ingeborg Esbrandt said:

Hey, nice post :) - well, even though I came via Google searching for “justfaces spreadshirt” wondering why this post came up on top??? Greetings xoxo

Spammer alert!

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Kris,

You can’t possibly know what I know.

mrg said:

DS said: Kris has certainly demonstrated that he doesn’t deserve anything more.

Actually, I was suggesting we all insult and abuse DH. If he wants to invite it, why not oblige?

We already tried that on Kris. You can only call someone an @$$hole, a bastard and crazy so many times before it gets tiresome. What’s the point of bashing me?

Kris has called me a liar for stating the obvious facts about him. We can all see what he has done, so why would he deny the stunts he has pulled? He is the one who invaded our space to attack the cause of the blog, yet he expects us to be tolerant and respectful of him no matter what he says? There is no law or principle I know that demands any such thing.

Kris said:

What you said about me is a complete lie. I didn’t start the insults and attacks. You and your asshole buddies here did. And trying to con FF with lies about me and that swill about respecting people you and they (“we”) don’t agree with is yet another one of your acts of deliberate dishonesty. You and most others here wouldn’t know what respect is if it hit you like a freight train going 60 miles per hour.

Since the statements you make about me are false, you’re a deliberate liar, according to your own standards for others. Of course your standards for yourself are completely different. How convenient for you.

The ONLY reason you and most others aren’t now viciously attacking FF is because she said she’s a woman. Even then, some of you have been pretty blunt to her, and especially rude before she said she’s a woman, even though she has been nice the whole time.

My questions to her are not an attack or a trap. They are sincere. You are grossly misrepresenting me and are just showing yourself to be the hypocritical, dishonest, delusional liar you are.

You are a seriously fucked up lunatic with delusions of godhood who needs a good ass kicking.

By the way, Mr. theological agnostic, unitarian, universalist, dis-honorable, bushido, liberal, un-scientific pseudo-skeptic, what are you going to add to or subtract from your self-created, self-serving, bogus religion tomorrow?

You just keep piling up your lies and hypocrisy Dale. You said “You do what you like, but I’m done with Kris for good.” yet you’re still bashing me and lying about me.

You also said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I went after him anyway.” when you first saw me here. When I first came here I didn’t say anything that warranted you going after me.

Plus, you said you respect people with whom you disagree but then you say “I’d go after Ann Coulter if that bitch showed up here too.” So much for you respecting people you disagree with.

As usual the things you claim about yourself, and me, are false, which makes you a chronic LIAR, according to your standards for others.

You admit to slamming me a lot but of course you try to make it look like you’re a saint for doing so. Whether you or anyone else here ever accepts it or not, I’m just giving you and others shit back because you and/or they started it, either with me or someone else who didn’t or doesn’t deserve it.

I didn’t escalate the situation. You and your fellow, lying, arrogant hypocrites did.

It really cracks me up to see you guys acting exactly like some of the creationists you hate and condemn so much. You accuse and attack them for not listening and having closed minds, and for playing what you think are ridiculous games, but you do the same thing. Congratulations, you have become your enemy.

FODS

I haven’t lied about anything, you jackass! The simple fact is that you have invaded Panda’s Thumb and have been a disruptive force from the beginning and have played us like suckers. I’m not fooled by you and no one else is. Even if you were insulted by one or two people in the beginning, you could have ignored it and just responded to the ones who were being positive to you, like flowersfriend has been, but instead you started throwing shit at everyone who dared to reject your tactics. We insulted you because that seemed to be what you liked, but I get tired of that after a while. You don’t, appearantly.

If you seriously think you have made ANY positive contributions to this community here, you are even more delusional than most Creationists!

Dale Husband said: What’s the point of bashing me?

None whatsoever, but since any comments to a troll are going to produce nothing but bashing in response, that leads to what the point of the comments was.

John often fails to read for comprehension. A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Ghrom said:

To make one point about the previous thread. John Kwok wrote:

“Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

[…]

If you are going to call Miss USA, a Muslim American, Rima Fakih, a bigot, then be my guest. Same is true for those two prominent Muslim Americans I had mentioned. Or other Muslim Americans who, like them, have spoken out against building the “Cordoba House” Islamic Center (Of course I am also against it, but am definitely not a bigot.).”

Unless YOU are a practicing Muslim your opposition to this cultural center is pure bigotry, so your saying that you’re “definitely not a bigot” is false. Your ruse of hiding behind the Muslim-Americans’ backs is the same as of the racists who think that using the n-word is OK because so many African-Americans use it. If you are a Muslim, well then, I find your views on the issue just silly, not bigoted.

Malchus said: A poor highschool education , no doubt.

Oh Bob, I can hear the howls now: “Set phasers to SLAUGHTER!”

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

With a troll’s profile ready at hand, and with sufficient discipline on the part of the regulars, that could be cut to zero.

Profile ready at hand? What exactly does that mean Mike? Ready for what or whom? Do you have printed profiles of all the people you’ve labeled as trolls and hand them out to passersby on street corners? Or, do you create a profile file in your computer containing your intricate and exhaustive (LMAO!) calculations and determinations about each alleged troll and somehow send a copy of it to everyone on Earth to warn them of impending doom? Or, do you only dispense it to other regulars here who are able to contact you personally and who request a copy because they let you do their thinking for them?

Or, do you just think that your stupid ‘profiles’ actually matter, when in reality they actually don’t? Do you really believe that what happens on this website, or your asinine profiles, or what you do with them, matters one iota to the vast majority of the people on Earth? Get over yourself Mike.

Hey, if you have my profile handy, why don’t you post it here? I could use a good laugh.

Your “profile” is a person who needs attention and does not even try to get it by behaving in any consistent or coherent fashion. You are a manipulative jerk who takes ANY response from others and uses it as an excuse to attack. You bash us for not being tolerant enough of Creationists, while stating Creationist fallacies yourself. Then you turn around and deny being religious and question why certain others who are Creationist take their religion so seriously. Such strange behavior is pathological in the extreme.

Gee, this website seems VERY important to you, considering how much time you spend here.

You are either crazy or a fraud, Kris.

The fun thing about the BW is that the trolls either have to cave in and respond on the BW – which they don’t want to do – or pass up responding – which they REALLY don’t want to do.

Kris said:

Whatever you do, don’t even consider that when people come here and sincerely want to ask, discuss, debate, learn, and/or contribute in some way, that when they’re mercilessly insulted and attacked and erroneously lumped into your hated group of ID/creationists, they just might not like it and may fight back, and especially when they offer reasonable explanations of their words and the explanations (and the person) are ignored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, slammed, bashed, and ridiculed by you and the rest of the mindless haters here. Yeah, don’t even consider that for a second. You and the other haters and bashers here are way too perfect to have to consider such things. It’s never your fault.

Your track record is too well known here for us to consider that you are sincere about anything. You are even WORSE than the average Creationist troll because you keep going back and forth between acting non-religious and acting like a Creationist. You cannot be both, so you must be bullshitting us. Nobody here can take that seriously.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

If you don’t like being called a liar, stop being one. At least I have ALWAYS told the truth about YOU.

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

mrg said:

DH, a very minor issue here: the first part you cited above was addressed to me, and personally I find it amusing to watch such comments fall into a hole of resounding silence.

However, as far as the rest goes, carry on.

Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest. But I figured I’d just make a note of ANY inappropriate thing Kris says elsewhere and post it here, answer it here, and wait for Kris to take the hint and stop attacking us everywhere else and just slam people here.

Dale Husband said: Oh, did you want to answer him here first? Be my guest.

Why would I want to do that? But if my own rejoinder is indifference, I can at least politely ask that the effect not be spoiled.

Kris threatens: “I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar,…”

Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

Mike Elzinga said: … everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

AARGH! I am so outa here!

Kris said:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Serial killers are maybe a bit much of a comparison.

The point was the sociopathic needs of such an individual. This troll has expressed violent thoughts a number of times. But a psychiatrist would have a better handle on this that I.

I think people like attention; it’s just a question of what kind of attention. When I was the factory contact guy in my corporate life, a colleague in marketing told me that it was true I put up with a lot of abuse – I did – but added: “People thank you sometimes.”

And they did. I get thanks on occasion for my current efforts as well – not often, and maybe thanks aren’t the be-all and end-all of the effort … but on the other side of the coin, if nobody ever thanks me, what reason would I have to honestly believe what I was doing actually did anyone good?

Now take the negative mentalities that show up here … does anyone ever thank them for what they’re doing? It’s obvious it never happens, and just as obvious that they haven’t any expectation that it will.

They still want attention, and lacking any concept that they will ever be praised, they have no alternative but to be disruptive. If one cannot build, then they can only take satisfaction in destruction.

Yeah; you are pointing out common desires that nearly everyone has. But sociopaths also know this and manipulate these.

But I suspect most of us can simply walk away from these kinds of manipulations when we have other things to do that are satisfying; and I suspect most of the moderators here on PT do in fact have other things vying for their attention.

Hell, I’m retired and I can’t get through everything I want to get through in a week. The only reason I even show up here is that the PT topics are often very interesting, and I have a high speed connection that allows me to look in from time to time when I happen to be working on my computer. So most of the time I’m multitasking up a storm when I’m here.

Expressed violent thoughts a number of times?? Yeah Mike, I would thoroughly enjoy kicking your ass and the asses of anyone else who has called me a liar, but I haven’t “expressed violent thoughts a number of times” in the way you’re implying. You’re the one who needs a psychiatrist, along with some others here. If you’re considered sane, I’d rather be considered crazy. And comparing me or anyone else you simply don’t agree with to a serial killer just helps show how paranoid and delusional you are.

Whew! Glad I never called Kris a liar. I only called him a coward and a bully.

Mike Elzinga said: Lotsa bluster; everybody’s collective asses are exposed right here.

So it’s like “one of these days Alice, POW! To the mooning”?

Another collection of Kris’ delusional rants.

Kris said:

And of course your insulting comments, and the insulting comments by the other hypocrites here, don’t violate any of those rules you posted, eh?

Apparently, all that matters here is that any insults have to be aimed at creationists or anyone who doesn’t blindly and viciously attack them right along with you guys/gals.

Giving you back your own shit isn’t allowed. Questioning you isn’t allowed. Having a mind of my own isn’t allowed. Calling you on your bullshit isn’t allowed. Anything less than total devotion and obedience to you and your creationist hating ‘cause’ isn’t allowed. Hypocrisy, by you and your cohorts, is allowed, and encouraged.

Kris said:

And of course you and others going on and on about “trolls”, and repeatedly posting “DNFTT”, isn’t “SPAM”. Yeah, whatever.

Why do you think that a “dissenter” is automatically a “troll”? You’ve said you’re a Christian. Would your Christian God approve of your insulting, hypocritical, hateful behavior?

Kris said:

Maybe, just maybe the moderators are getting wise to the hypocrisy and other bullshit you and others are guilty of.

Now STFU spamming troll.

How do you like your own shit thrown back at you?

Panda’s Thumb is a blog made for defending evolution and promoting proper science education, and since Kris was the one who invaded the blog to spew both Creationist arguments that we were expected to “tolerate” (like we are supposed to tolerate falsehoods?) and then claim to be non-religious at other times, why shouldn’t we regard him as unwelcome, inconsistent and disruptive? Why shouldn’t we treat him like he is the enemy, when that’s all he has ever acted like since he arrived here?

An example of hypocrisy would be us invading and attacking ID promoters on Uncommon Descent. I’ve never done that, and never will. Maybe Kris can go over there and drive the ID people crazy for a while, to prove to us once and for all that he is an equal-opportunity critic, and not a bigoted Creationist concern troll.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

Kris the creationist wrote:

“If, however, “descent with modification” is defined as showing that speciation (evolution) occurs and/or occurred, then that’s a different ballgame, and requires greater evidence. While a lot of evidence points to a persuasive probability that descent with modification, including divergence/speciation, occurred throughout(?) the history of life, there’s a lot more work to do to before it can reasonably be said that it has been established close to 100%, and I’m not sure it can be reasonably said that it can be established ‘empirically’. Many inferences have been and have to be made, and inferences are a matter of opinion.”

This is of course incorrect. I already posted a link to a web page entitled:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

If Kris wants to discuss the point, he can do so here. Maybe someone will want to discuss it with him. Unless of course he is just plain chicken shit.

DS said: Kris the creationist wrote:

You might just leave a short bland note on the original thread to invite him to come to the BW for discussion. He’ll ignore it, of course, but that works too.

Yawn.

(Bored.)

All the spamming at The Immune System Cross-examination Still Burns, and other forums, is very unChristlike, don’t you think?

Makes you wonder if these anti-science creation-supporters are Christians? (Never known a real creationist who wasn’t.)

It’s funny how trolls stubbornly resist being prodded to direct their comments to the BW. They know that once they do, they don’t have any real nuisance value any more: “What’s the point of trolling, then?”

Kris huffs and puffs and squeaks “What are you afraid of?” hiding behind his mommy’s apron. Afraid to mix it up on the big kid’s playground, he’ll sit in the sandbox and cry.

Poor widdle Kwis! Mean old scientists call you out on your stupid shit? Maybe if we ignore the little wanker he’ll go back into the closet and play with himself.

Geeze, I’m beginning to miss FL! I tell you, the neighborhood is going to hell.

I knew the asshole was chicken shit. All he haas to do is come here and provide a better explanation for the 29 different independent data sets that are all consistent with common descent. Until he does, I guess he will just be someone who believes in evolution but not in common descent. Yea right.

Everyone should remember, he had his chance to discuss science, he chose to quote mine and insult instead. He can cry all he wants to now, but everyone is wise to his crap.

Tortured Logic

“As you (Energy Environment Cabinet official) sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.” – Brandon Smith

There is no intelligence in this statement that I’m aware of.

Yardbird said:

Tortured Logic

“As you (Energy Environment Cabinet official) sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.” – Brandon Smith

There is no intelligence in this statement that I’m aware of.

Did this guy study under Prof. Dan Quayle? Quayle (some time in the late 80s I think)

“Mars is essentially in the same orbit … Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.”

Is harboring misconceptions about Mars in the GOP platform somewhere?

callahanpb said:

Yardbird said:

Tortured Logic

“As you (Energy Environment Cabinet official) sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.” – Brandon Smith

There is no intelligence in this statement that I’m aware of.

Did this guy study under Prof. Dan Quayle? Quayle (some time in the late 80s I think)

“Mars is essentially in the same orbit … Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.”

Is harboring misconceptions about Mars in the GOP platform somewhere?

I don’t know if it’s in the platform but distortions of reality underpin much of what passes for their thinking. They focus on chilling illusions that give them power, instead of the real problems of poverty, an increasing lack of social mobility, infrastructure decay, and environmental issues. Real problems are tough to deal with and can’t be controlled. Illusions are easier and more effective. A little smoke and a few mirrors can gin up a moral panic and a fevered outrage. In this contest, the one with the darkest visions wins.

Yardbird said:

I don’t know if it’s in the platform but distortions of reality underpin much of what passes for their thinking.

It may just be “Mars is really far away, so I can make s— up about it.” combined with total ignorance of the fact that we have probes on Mars and orbiting Mars, so you really can’t make up your own set of facts about it.

Is harboring misconceptions about Mars in the GOP platform somewhere?

Maybe somebody took Total Recall as a documentary?

Ray Martinez said:

Creationists agree unanimously: design in nature/species clearly seen.

And yet, apparently, somehow still so bafflingly hard to actually demonstrate.

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said:

Creationists agree unanimously: design in nature/species clearly seen.

And yet, apparently, somehow still so bafflingly hard to actually demonstrate.

There are many people who unanimously agree that they clearly see fairies, at the bottom of their gardens.

Demonstrate? Demonstrate? The Big Tent doesn’t allow no Demons!

The purpose of this post is to show some of the reasons for disputing the historicity Gospels. It seems to me that there is a dearth of evidence that they should be taken at face value. That was disputed all the way from the beginning to the time of the massacre of the Cathars, and beyond.

Quote from “The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy:

The Passover occurs in the Old Testament myth of the Exodus in which Moses leads his people from captivity in Egypt across the desert to the promised land. This was a favorite tale of Hellenized Jews, especially Philo, and forms the basis for a number of elements in the Jesus story. Mystical Jews understood the Exodus as an allegory of spiritual initiation. The Jewish people start off as “captives” in Egypt, are “called out of Egypt” by Moses, and are finally led as the “ chosen people” to the promised land by the prophet Joshua. Here then are the three stages of initiation we have already found in both Gnosticism and the Pagan Mysteries: the initiate is first a “captive” (a Hylic), then is baptized to become one of the “called” (a Psychic) and finally is initiated to become one of the “chosen” (a Pneumatic). Someone was regarded as “captive” while identified with his body and blind to his true spiritual identity. Egypt was seen as a metaphor for the body and to “come forth out of Egypt” was seen as symbolizing transcending identification with the body. The miraculous crossing of the Red Sea was understood as a metaphor for baptism by water. A baptized initiate was regarded as one of those “called” to make the spiritual journey. The afflictions experienced by the Jews during their 40 years wandering in the wilderness were seen as a metaphor for the initiate’s experience of being afflicted by doubts and uncertainties. The “ chosen “ were those who reached the promised land, symbolizing the promise of Gnosis at the end of the spiritual journey. The motif of being “called out of Egypt” appears in Mathew’s gospel. Mary, Joseph, and the newborn Jesus are portrayed as taking refuge in Egypt, until the death of the evil King Herod makes it safe for them to return home. The text explains that this happens so that the prophecy might be fulfilled. “ Out of Egypt have I called my son.” In an age obsessed by hidden meanings, the double resonance in this motif must have delighted the creators of the Jesus myth. Here they were able to echo the initiation allegory of the Exodus story in which the Jews are called out of Egypt and at the same time tell the initiated reader the place from which the Jesus Mysteries truly originated-ancient Egypt.

Moses’ 40 years wandering in the wilderness, plagued by serpents and so forth, become Jesus’ 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness, in which he is plagued by doubts and temptations in the form of the Devil. Moses does not himself make it to the promised land, but appoints the prophet Joshua to lead the chosen people to their final destination in his place. Hence Joshua (Greek: Jesus) was the name selected for the Jewish Osiris-Dionysus who leads his chosen people to the promised land of mystical rebirth. Joshua represents the New Covenant of the Jewish Mysteries, which replaces the old laws and traditions represented by Moses. His first task is to appoint 12 followers. Likewise in the Jesus myth one of Jesus’ first acts is to select the 12 disciples.

From “Religion or Psychology” by psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Arne Duve (translated by me):

By the end of the 19th century some interest was awakened when in an ancient Syrian hand-script the following text was discovered: “Jacob begat Joseph, Joseph to whom Mary, the virgin, was engaged – begat Jesus. Many wanted to see that as evidence that the virgin birth was something that had been added later in the history of Christendom. Even Paul seems not to have known about it. But the account of the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus is not affected by these words in the Syrian script, for all the rest of the chapter remains unchanged. The most likely explanation is that the copying scribe just mechanically repeated the same syntax as he already had been using 39 times before in the family tree.. The Biblical account of the wondrous virgin birth that belonged within the frame of the great divine characters, probably stems from the apocrypha of late Judaism and the sects behind them – a concept that they most likely had adopted from other religions. It is a certainty that they had the old traditions behind them in the near Orient. If the birth of Jesus and all that is connected with it had been supernatural in nature, it seems quite impossible to understand that his mother and closest associates did not acknowledge his divine nature. On the contrary, they thought he was mad. Christ did not correspond with the Jews official concept of Messiah; therefore they have never recognized him as such. The Messiah of Christendom is lord of a world of Spirit and in the Kingdom of God that is in each and everyone of us. The shape given to the character in the New Testament probably has a number of different sources. The society behind “The New Pact” did for example not expect him as a descendant of David. At a certain time the Jews had two different expectations of Messiah. One was the concept of Messiah as the son of David – Messiah ben David – an earthly, literal ruler. This expectation lives on in Judaism. The other Messiah-concept in particular related to the Northern kingdom, was the expectation of the Anointed as the Son of Joseph – Messiah ben Joseph – a concept that soon disappeared from official Judaism.(Das alte Testament in Licht des alten Orients by Alfred Jeremias, Leipzig 1930.)

But just this version must have found its way into Christendom, possibly via some mystery sect. It is worth noting that Jesus is said to be descended from the heathen Galilee – from the Northern kingdom. Many parallels can be found between the legend of Joseph and the life of Jesus – traits that are too numerous for them to be just a coincidence. *

Jesus had 12 apostles, and later the 70 disciples were sent out – something that goes back to the cosmic heroes of the Zodiac, the tribes of Israel, the “elders” of the nation, and the number of peoples. When Judah falls away, Matthias is first chosen in his place – later, Paul arrives as the 13th. Jacob’s sons counted 12. When Jacob went to Egypt with all his house, they were 70 souls altogether. Joseph’s two sons, Manasse and Ephraim become included among the brothers. When Joseph dies, the number becomes 13. Also here, two are added to the original number – and the sum is the same, 13. Joseph was an interpreter of dreams – of symbols – One-who-reveals—secrets as he also was called. Jesus often spoke in parables and images that he translated and interpreted. Both had insight into the world of symbols. And they became themselves symbols. * Joseph was sold for 20 shekel of silver – as suggested by Judah. Jesus was betrayed by Judas – the Greek form of Judah – for 30 pieces of gold. The different numbers probably are significant of succeeding steps of development. Joseph and his work is in the domain of the soul and the material world – corn was his means of liberation. Jesus and his world are at the spiritual level. Thought – spirit – has become conscious road to salvation and decisive reality. That is underscored also by Jesus, according to legend, being placed in a manger. Corn – the plant – is replaced by Man. * Joseph was thrown in the empty well that became the gate to glorification. Jesus was placed in an empty crypt at Calvary, the name of the roof of the skull covering the brain. Jesus and his lore therefore lies entirely on the level of spirit. Man’s consciousness and soul have become alpha and omega. * Both Jesus’ birth and death are connected with the name of Joseph, since the crypt belonged to a Joseph of Aramitea, Joseph and his father both went to Egypt – as did also Jesus and his father. This heavy emphasis on the Nile-country expresses a unity between Judaism, Christendom, Egyptian mystery religion and the monotheism that had its origins in Egypt. We may remember that Joseph was married to the daughter of the high priest in the city of the Sun – Heliopolis –On. * Joseph was preferred before his brothers by his father. Among other things, he was given a royal robe. Jesus for his part stood in a particular and loving son-relationship with his heavenly father. Also the robe of Jesus was particular. It was without seams – woven as one piece – the symbol of spiritual coherence and unity of the soul. The robe of Jesus did not look like the emperors – his kingdom was not of this world. * Joseph went obediently to his brothers in Sikem, even if he knew the dangers – a parallel to Jesus trip to Jerusalem. For both of them, blood was used as evidence for their death; Joseph’s bloody, torn robe was shown to his father. And blood and water flooded out of the wound of the Saviour. * In Reuben’s speech of defence one may recognize Pilate. Ruben, as the oldest of the brothers should have been in command in the same way as Pilate had command over Jesus – as representative of the Roman Empire. * Joseph resisted the temptations of Potifar’s wife – a theme being the main motif of a very popular and widely read Egyptian story. * Nor Jesus did not fall when tempted by the devil. But it may be noted that the temptation facing Jesus was of an entirely different character – spiritual values were at stake. * Both Joseph and Jesus were imprisoned and accused of crimes of which they were innocent. The one was imprisoned for 3 years, the other spent 3 days – a number probably related to the cycles of the moon. It takes 3 days from the smallest no to the newest new. In the prison, Joseph met pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker. One was released to freedom; the other killed and hung on a tree. We recognize the two bandits on the cross – one would be going to paradise. That the cupbearer was to survive must be because he represented wine – the spiritual principle. In earlier times it was thought that there was a spirit – spiritus – that cause the particular effect. On the other hand, the baker symbolise the material – corn must perish. Further development would continue with the great successor to Joseph. * Both Joseph and Jesus begin their work at 30, probably as an expression of maturity. For both of them, debasement and suffering became the starting point and the road to glory. Joseph also was called Zofnat- Paneah, - the World’s saviour, a title also applied to Jesus. The two saviours both were thought to be dead. But death was not real – it was of a symbolic nature. “Death” was a necessary prerequisite for the ensuing glory. * Joseph was of a forgiving nature; he did not return is brothers evil. It was also the principle of Jesus to break the power of evil by meeting it with love and understanding. Joseph’s identity was long held hidden from the brothers until he gave himself away to them. It also lasted long before Jesus revealed to them his identity – as Messiah. * There is in the legend of Joseph also an element of a consciously arranged accusation – leading to “arrest” – “trial” – and clarification with a consolidation of the house of Jacob with joy – a parallel to what took place at Jesus’ death. We refer to the account of how a silver beaker was placed in the bag of one of the brothers at his departure from Egypt. The travelling party was apprehended – ransacked - the whole party was returned – with the ensuing result. * Dr. Hugh Schonfield – well known Jewish historian- who also have written the books “The Jew of Tarsus – a Life of Paul” – “Saints against Caesar” – “The Authentic New Testament” (Schonfield’s own translation of the new testament) – “The Secrets of the Dead Sea Scroll” and “The Bible was right”, shortly before Christmas 1965 sent a torch into the religious debate with the book “The Passover Plot” – or “The Easter Plot”. Schoenfeld has ever since his younger days and throughout a long career as researcher been occupied with Jesus and his relationship with the religious and social conditions in Palestine at the beginning of the current era. Sconfield makes the supposition that Jesus, being from “heathen land”, Galilee was a person deeply and seriously worried about the salvation of his people from fall and destruction. The land was occupied by the Romans who ruled with iron, blood and crucifying. He studied the religious scriptures very thoroughly, and by and by, he came to the conclusion that he was the Messiah intended to save his people. He knew all that had been predicted about him in the holy scriptures and therefore could proceed according to that. Schonfield is of the opinion that Jesus – who also had learned from the Essenes and other sects, - particularly the Nasarenes, - made a carefully prepared plan for action – to culminate in death on the cross – which he intended to survive according to a carefully thought out plan – of which incidentally the apostles were not informed so that he had to rely on helpers outside of apostolic circles.

The plan was carefully made such that Jesus calculated that court proceedings and crucifying would be executed in a way that would ensure he would hang on the cross only for a few hours- because the next day would be Sabbath. The law required the bodies to be removed by then. This execution method was preferred by the Romans, and it was not by itself fatal. Death came after a prolonged time because of pain, exhaustion, thirst and hunger. It all went according to plan. Schonfield assumes that Jesus by a helper was given some kind of anaesthetic from the sponge that he was given, so that it would seem like he was dead. The story tells that shortly thereafter, he gave up his spirit. After having been taken down, he should be taken care of by his helpers - so that he might survive. In this manner Jesus thought that the prophecies would be fulfilled – they do not say that the Messiah necessarily should die – but that he should be spared death. But the plan failed on an important and unforeseen point. A Roman soldier not being convinced that Jesus was dead, pierced his side with a lance – and his life could not be saved. Schonfield seems strangely enough not to have been aware of the parallel between Jesus and the Legend of Joseph, - but the moment of the fake accusation seems to support the supposition about a connection – perhaps the way Schonfield suggests. The clear parallel between these two saviour-characters that nobody before seems to have been aware of – becomes clearer with the continued study of the Dead Sea scrolls. The British scientist John Allegro, lecturer in the Old Testament at the University of Manchester and member of the 8-man team working on the translation of the scrolls, in January 1966 made a statement that the study of the scrolls may lead to the conclusion that for instance the apostles are not historical persons – but rather mythological characters signifying among other things positions of office in the sect of the Essenes – for instance the one entrusted with the handling of money. Judas is in John XIII, 29 described as the one carrying “the purse”, i.e. the keeper of the money. In Aramaic, this is “ish sacariob” – the name Iskariot is easily recognizable. There now seems to be sufficient grounds for the view that the gospels also are a framework around the central secrets of existence with the Jesus-figure and the Christ-impulse at the centre. As a curiosum, it may be mentioned that in 1883, an exhibit of three ancient parchment scrolls found in a cave by the Dead Sea, was shown in the British Museum. The find was however considered a forgery, and nobody knows what happened to these scrolls. * All the common elements that I have mentioned show that traits from the legend of Joseph must have been used in creating the mythical framework around Jesus. They share too much in common that it may be just coincidental.

The symbols of the latter version are to some extent been applied in a new manner in another setting – another aspect. Evolution has progressed to a new level, with emphasis shifted from the body-soul sector to man as a spiritual being. Corn therefore no longer serves as the means of salvation. The mission of the character of Joseph has come to an end. The new saviour of the world should work on the level of mentality. A discontinuity in time had arrived, when man should realize himself as a being of spirit. The cupbearer – representative of the spirit - shall satisfy the possibilities of man – therefore he was given free. One character has retained his function quite unchanged, namely Juda – Judas, the one who sets suffering in motion – the prerequisite for realization, liberation and the new life. In this respect, man can hardly be expected to change. The greed for money – materialism – even then got suffering going.

[Hillary] Clinton‘s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or “the Family”), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to “spiritual war” on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship’s only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has “made a fetish of being invisible,” former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.

Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet, in Mother Jones

Rolf said:

The purpose of this post is to show some of the reasons for disputing the historicity Gospels. It seems to me that there is a dearth of evidence that they should be taken at face value. That was disputed all the way from the beginning to the time of the massacre of the Cathars, and beyond. …

Good stuff, Rolf. Thanks for posting.

Have you ever read John Shelby Spong’s Liberating the Gospels? It focuses mainly on the three synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke to show how they were designed to fit into the Jewish liturgical calendar. All were written before Christianity broke away from Judaism, when it was rather still a reformist movement within the Jewish faith. And their structure and substance thus reflect not any concern for historical accuracy, but liturgical presentation and the expression of spiritual ideas within the constraints of such a tradition.

John is a different kettle of fish entirely, written at the very height of the tensions between Christians and other Jews, as the schism was happening. Spong addresses it less fully, since it is more complex and also different enough to merit a complete treatment on its own (which, to my knowledge, Spong has never written, though he’s certainly discussed it at various times). But it’s written without much regard for the Jewish liturgical cycle, connects things back to God and Genesis (the idea of the Trinity is burgeoning around this time), and incorporates many concepts borrowed from the Greek (and Greco-Roman) philosophy of the day, most famously logos, “The Word” – or “speech,” or “reason,” or “account.”

Anyway, Spong’s book is a good one, and I highly recommend it.

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

Here’s the raw, naked truth: Homosexuality is actually a demon spirit. It is such a putrid smelling demon that other demons don’t even like to hang around it. A genuine prophet of God told me that the Lord allowed him to smell this demon spirit, and he got sick to his stomach. And yet as humans, many embrace this demon. Yes, you heard me right. Being gay is demonic.

Bert Farias

phhht said:

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

Here’s the raw, naked truth: Homosexuality is actually a demon spirit. It is such a putrid smelling demon that other demons don’t even like to hang around it. A genuine prophet of God told me that the Lord allowed him to smell this demon spirit, and he got sick to his stomach. And yet as humans, many embrace this demon. Yes, you heard me right. Being gay is demonic.

Bert Farias

One of the strategies used by gay conversion therapists is to have them poop in a jar and then smell it every time they have a gay thought. And of course exorcism.

mattdance18 said:

Rolf said:

The purpose of this post is to show some of the reasons for disputing the historicity Gospels. It seems to me that there is a dearth of evidence that they should be taken at face value. That was disputed all the way from the beginning to the time of the massacre of the Cathars, and beyond. …

Good stuff, Rolf. Thanks for posting.

Have you ever read John Shelby Spong’s Liberating the Gospels? It focuses mainly on the three synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke to show how they were designed to fit into the Jewish liturgical calendar. All were written before Christianity broke away from Judaism, when it was rather still a reformist movement within the Jewish faith. And their structure and substance thus reflect not any concern for historical accuracy, but liturgical presentation and the expression of spiritual ideas within the constraints of such a tradition.

John is a different kettle of fish entirely, written at the very height of the tensions between Christians and other Jews, as the schism was happening. Spong addresses it less fully, since it is more complex and also different enough to merit a complete treatment on its own (which, to my knowledge, Spong has never written, though he’s certainly discussed it at various times). But it’s written without much regard for the Jewish liturgical cycle, connects things back to God and Genesis (the idea of the Trinity is burgeoning around this time), and incorporates many concepts borrowed from the Greek (and Greco-Roman) philosophy of the day, most famously logos, “The Word” – or “speech,” or “reason,” or “account.”

Anyway, Spong’s book is a good one, and I highly recommend it.

Thank you! I’ll try to get Spong’s book!

phhht said:

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

Here’s the raw, naked truth: Homosexuality is actually a demon spirit. It is such a putrid smelling demon that other demons don’t even like to hang around it. A genuine prophet of God told me that the Lord allowed him to smell this demon spirit, and he got sick to his stomach. And yet as humans, many embrace this demon. Yes, you heard me right. Being gay is demonic.

Bert Farias

I have to wonder if there is anything so bizarre (or loony) that a person like that wouldn’t believe it if it were told to him by a “genuine prophet of God”.

My supposition is that the “prophet” would cease being a “prophet” the minute he uttered anything contrary to the bigotry of Bert Farias.

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation. One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire, and there will be a new heavens and earth. God’s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the “Godman,” to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin—the Savior of mankind.

Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior…

Ken Ham

Ken Ham: This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation.

I’ve often wondered about the metaphysical consequences of finding other life in the universe. Every time I’ve seen a creationist address the issue they simply , flatly deny that there is any other life out there because ‘the Bible says so”.

But… My Bible says no such thing.

As far as I can tell, my copy of the good book makes no mention whatsoever of any other life that may, or may not, be wandering around on other planets at this very moment.

Tellingly, two of the passages Ham himself quotes

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

Psalms 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

Would seem to implicitly state that God made lots of things out there, and of the things he made he specifically gave Earth to the children of men.

But what he did on the other 99,999,999 inhabitable planets doesn’t seem to be a matter of record. Or, more precisely, not a matter that God deigns to share with us mere mortals.

Given what is (to me, at least) a rather obvious implication that we could be just one of many, many little bio-projects God has dabbled in during the last few millennia, and he’d have no duty at all to tell us, it’s a fascinating little gyration that creobots like Ham always seem to neeeeed to go through to establish that we”re both unique and alone.

“Yes, yes, God is all powerful and can easily call millions of planets into existence at a whim, and yes, yes, god can also create sentient beings on a whim, but he chooses instead to create millions of empty planets because we’re so special.”

Here’s a thought for Ken: what if there’s a planet where Eve didn’t eat the apple? What if people there still live in the garden, and even the little children never wander past the rope line to nibble from the forbidden tree?

I bet God loves them waaay more than he loves Ken. After all, unlike Ken, the people on that planet were never besmirched with all that icky original sin.

Heck, God probably never even felt the need to wipe all of them out with a flood, or threaten all of them constantly with eternal damnation because they’re so disobedient.

phhht said:

Tarred with the Epithet Loony: An Intermittent Series

And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation. One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire, and there will be a new heavens and earth. God’s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the “Godman,” to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin—the Savior of mankind.

Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior…

Ken Ham

A more perfect illustration of Ken Ham’s pathetically desperate need to feel “special” could scarcely be imagined.

FL said:

So that’s what the Bible says. All slavery opposed; freedom recommended instead.

Floyd, this is just pathetic. It’s not “what the Bible says.” It’s what you say. You are giving your interpretation, with no citation of any Biblical text that might mitigate against it, and then declaring it the Bible’s position, as if that position were some completely self-consistent thing. You look ridiculous.

That pretty much leaves only the question that your brought up (and of course Mattdance and Daniel too), of what about some of the slavery regulations that were given specifically in the Mosaic Law to one nation – Israel.

You don’t see the Bible endorsing the slavery systems of other countries at all, so your only question is about Israel and those texts.

I see! So what of the Bible’s other endorsements and prohibitions? “Honor thy father and thy mother,” “Thou shalt not murder,” etc – all delivered solely to the Jews… ergo applicable only to the Jews?

Sorry, Floyd, but your interpretation looks flimsier and flimsier all the time.

Notice that even in the Mosaic Law, slavery is NOT endorsed at all, just tolerated in Israel as long as the strict human-rights regulations are obeyed. Israel is reminded of the pain they received when THEY were slaves.

Except that it says “you may own slaves.” Subject to conditions, yes. But you may own them. It’s allowed.

You really need to stop confusing your non-literal interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself.

Slavery is therefore not the economic system God wants, and therefore not endorsed by the Bible. But He chose to address the evil by eliminating it **over time**, using Israel to light up the way for the rest of the world.

That’s what I think irritates skeptics – the gradual method that God chose to use to oppose and defeat slavery in the world. Skeptics have no idea just how utterly radical those Bible slavery regulations were within the ANE slavery milieu.

Nah, your “gradualism” doesn’t bother this skeptic in the slightest. It’s a crap argument borne of a desperate attempt to make the Bible fit your interpretation. God didn’t “gradually” prohibit murder or theft or coveting. But slavery, that had to be prohibited gradually? Bullshit, I say, bullshit.

No, Floyd, what irritates me is the way that you can look at a passage like Leviticus 25: 44-46, which explicitly states that you may own slaves, that slaves are property, that as property they may be bequeathed to one’s inheritors… and yet claim that nothing in the Bible could possibly be construed as endorsing slavery. It irritates me that you can look at Exodus 21:2-11, which explicitly differentiates between the treatment of Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves, and between the treatment of male slaves and female slaves (some of the latter being concubines)… and declare that the Bible is exclusively egalitarian.

In the end, what irritates me is that you are so desperate to save Biblical literalism and inerrancy that when your interpretation of the Bible’s message on slavery runs afoul of certain passages about slavery, you pretend that the Bible itself is saying something other than what it says.

Anyway, let’s focus on Mattdance’s OT texts. Next post or two I address them.

Looking forward to it.

One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire,

Or failing that, by dark energy…

Course, that’s long after Earth gets “judged” by a yellow dwarf bloating into a red giant (assuming Earth is still in the same orbit when that happens).

Our central question concerned children’s judgments about the status of story characters in religious stories. Children with exposure to religion—via church attendance, parochial schooling, or both—judged such characters to be real. By contrast, children with no such exposure judged them to be pretend. This sharp discrepancy between children with and without exposure to religion lends no support to the hypothesis that children are “born believers” (Barrett, 2012) with a natural credulity toward extraordinary beings with superhuman powers. Indeed, secular children responded to religious stories in much the same way as they responded to fantastical stories—they judged the protagonist to be pretend.

Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds

In the end, what irritates me is that you are so desperate to save Biblical literalism and inerrancy that when your interpretation of the Bible’s message on slavery runs afoul of certain passages about slavery, you pretend that the Bible itself is saying something other than what it says.

One does wonder he doesn’t resort to the old “inerrant in its original autographs” trope to get around the obvious conflict between his beliefs and the Bible.

FL said:

a. If you buy a Hebrew servant: “The first words of God from Sinai had declared that He was Jehovah Who brought them out of slavery. And in this remarkable code, the first person whose rights are dealt with is the slave.” (Chadwick)

Yes exactly. The bible recognizes the institution of slavery as a legitimate institution for its people to carry out, it accepts that people can be bought and sold, and it gives rules about how they can be treated.

This is endorsement.

b. A Hebrew servant: There were four basic ways a Hebrew might become a slave to another Hebrew.

Yes, and in contrast, there are zero ways anyone may become a slave in the US today, becase we don’t let people sell their liberty or their children’s liberty. We view such practices as abhorrent and evil. So if the bible has four ways someone may legitimately become a slave, then that’s endorsing four ways too many.

c. He shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing: In such cases, .the servitude was never obligated to be life-long. The Hebrew servant worked for six years and then was set free. At the end of the six years, went out with what he came in with.

How, exactly, do you get from there to “not endorsing slavery?” Seven years of slavery is still seven years of slavery. It doesn’t have to be lifelong to count. God endorsing one day of slavery is too much.

a. If a man sells his daughter to be a female slave: The maid-servant was bought, but not really to be a slave, but to be the master’s wife or the wife of the master’s son one day.

That’s worse. How misogynistic are you FL, to think that being sold to someone and forced by law to be their wife is okay? I’m sure the majority of women would much rather prefer field labor as a ‘regular’ slave to being raped every night by a man they have not consented to be with and cannot refuse.

b. He shall let her be redeemed: If her master did not marry her, or decided not to give her to his son, the master was still obligated to respect her rights under God’s law.

No, this is completely wrong. “Redeemed” means he has to sell her back to her father and not to a foreigner when he doesn’t want her any more. The comment explicitly repudiates the concept of women’s rights by treating her as chattel property of either the husband or the father. If the bible had truly wanted to respect her human rights, it would have done so by saying she was not allowed to be sold in the first place, because selling people is not allowed.

c. He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights: The idea of women - and women of lower classes - having such rights, respected by God and society was revolutionary in an age when women were usually regarded as property.

That is a decent defense…if you think humans are responsible for the laws that are in the bible. Is that what you are claiming, FL?

Because if you’re claiming God is responsible for them, treating women as valuable property rather than just property is frakking awful morality.

mattdance18 said:

Good stuff, Rolf. Thanks for posting.

If you should want to read more from the source “Christendom or Psychology”, just mail me at rolfdotaalbergatgmaildotcom and I’ll send you a copy. There are some interesting things there.

If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”

Oh, good, pick up an African slave and you don’t have to release him, ever.

What was that about equality?

Here’s pretty good coverage of slavery vis-a-vis Bible requirements

So nice of Flawd to tell us that it’s from his God.

Glen Davidson

Told you the asshole would never admit he was wrong. The bible give all kinds of rules for how to treat slaves, but it doesn’t condone slavery. THe bible never mentions evolution, (I wonder why not), but you are damned to hell if you believe it. The bible says whatever FLoyd says it says, or whatever anyone who agrees with him says, since he usually doesn’t know what he wants it to say anyway. It’s like some universal acid has eaten away his brain. Imagine that.

The Bible: “If a man sells his daughter to be a female slave …”

FL the biblical literalist: “The maid-servant was bought, but not really to be a slave”

I don’t need to say any more

FL said:

Let’s see your discussion of Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:44-46, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 first, Mr. Let’s Take the Bible Seriously.

Let’s just do the first two, since that last one obviously fits right in with the 1 Corinthians and 1 Peter texts we discussed earlier. 1 Tim is just inviting Christian slaves (who choose to stay and serve) to do the same thing as the Corinthian texts.

Ahem, no it is not. It is telling Christian slaves to serve their masters who are also Christian even better than they would serve masters who were pagan. Do not ignore this text.

As for the rest, please note that once again, you are not offering anything of your own. You merely cite somebody else’s website. Why is that? Are you incapable of thinking about your own holy book for yourself?

So that leaves those first two texts. Exactly what is the Bible “condoning”? Are the regulations specific, or are they “ambiguous”? Let’s just see.

Floyd, I’m sorry, but you clearly don’t even understand what was at issue when I said the Bible is “ambiguous” about slavery. The regulations are of course specific, as any regulations would be. It’s the moral status of slavery itself that is left “ambiguous” by the Bible. This is in spite of – or rather, is actually because of – the very passages that make those oh-so-specific regulations. In some passages, slavery is cast negatively, as in the passages referencing the Israelites liberation from Egypt. And yet, in some other passages, slavery is also clearly acceptable. In other words:

Because there are some passages that cast slavery negatively, yet other passages that characterize it as acceptable, the moral status of slavery is “ambiguous” in the Bible.

Try to keep up.

****

Exodus 21:2-11 is first. Take it a few verses at a time.

If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”

– verses 2,3,4.

Okay, check out this explanation:

a. If you buy a Hebrew servant: “The first words of God from Sinai had declared that He was Jehovah Who brought them out of slavery. And in this remarkable code, the first person whose rights are dealt with is the slave.” (Chadwick)

b. A Hebrew servant: There were four basic ways a Hebrew might become a slave to another Hebrew.

- In extreme poverty, they might sell their liberty (Leviticus 25:39). - A father might sell his children into servitude (Exodus 21:7). - In the case of bankruptcy, a man might become servant to his creditors (2 Kings 4:1). - If a thief had nothing with which to pay proper restitution (Exodus 22:3-4).

c. He shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing: In such cases, .the servitude was never obligated to be life-long. The Hebrew servant worked for six years and then was set free. At the end of the six years, went out with what he came in with. If the master provided a wife (and therefore children), the wife and children had to stay with the master or be redeemed.

What does this discussion prove, exactly? Come on, Floyd: all of these (specific) regulations are in the context of human beings buying and selling human beings. The mere fact that regulations are given – in this case, specifically pertaining to how one can treat the Hebrew slaves one might happen to own – indicates that, under those regulations, the practice is indeed “condoned.”

Verses 3-5 are next, concerning slaves who did NOT want to go free.

“But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

a. But if the servant plainly says, “I love my master”: If, after the six years of servitude, a servant wished to make a life-long commitment to his master - in light of the master’s goodness and his blessings for the servant - he could, through this ceremony, make a life-long commitment to his master.

i. This commitment was not motivated by debt or obligation, only by love for the master.

b. His master shall pierce his ear with an awl: In the ceremony, the servant’s ear would be pierced - opened - with an awl, in the presence of witnesses - then, he shall serve him for ever.

i. Psalms 40:6 speaks of this ceremony taking place between the Father and the Son, where the Psalmist spoke prophetically for the Messiah: Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened. Jesus was a perfect bond-slave to the Father (Philippians 2:7).

c. He shall serve him forever: Jesus gave us the right to be called friends instead of servants (John 15:15). Yet the writers of the New Testament found plenty of glory in simply being considered bondservants of Jesus (Romans 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1:1).

i. Pagans had a custom of branding the slave with the name or the sign of the owner. Paul referred to himself as just such a slave in Galatians 6:17: From now on, let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Paul was a slave for life to Jesus.

Again, so what? How does offering a set of regulations for a slave could “willingly” remain a slave – I use the scare quotes, because if the choice is “go be free… without your wife and children” or “stay with your wife and children… but serve me for life,” the choice seems to involve duress, yes?… – indicate that slavery itself, as an institution, is not “condoned?” Where is the “total opposition” to slavery in giving slaves an “option” to “willingly” remain slaves forever?

And now, the rest of the text, 7-11. This is the part about selling daughters.

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

a. If a man sells his daughter to be a female slave: The maid-servant was bought, but not really to be a slave, but to be the master’s wife or the wife of the master’s son one day.

b. He shall let her be redeemed: If her master did not marry her, or decided not to give her to his son, the master was still obligated to respect her rights under God’s law.

c. He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights: The idea of women - and women of lower classes - having such rights, respected by God and society was revolutionary in an age when women were usually regarded as property.

Floyd, in that last sentence, “your” interpretation breaks down entirely: the women up for discussion in these verses were property!!! The whole passage is about how you were to treat a woman whose father had sold her into slavery!!! How does saying, “Here’s how to treat the women you own,” indicate any form of opposition to owning them?!?

*****

I’m sorry, Floyd. It looks this discussion is beyond you. Yet again, you just quote someone else’s discussion. And you don’t even seem to grasp that the entire discussion illustrates exactly my point rather than yours.

Okay, so there you go. It’s not so simple as saying, “the Bible condones slavery” anymore, is it? And these regulations aren’t “ambiguous”, are they? They’re quite specific. You’re not getting a condoning of the institution of slavery here with this text, THAT’s for sure.

It is impossible not to get the impression that the passage condones the institution of slavery. It regulates the institution, of course – but that wasn’t what’s at issue. Here’s how I would put it:

The fact that the passage proposes regulations for slavery indicates that it CONDONED slavery, subject to those regulations.

And the fact that nowhere does the passage propose the elimination of slavery indicates that it DID NOT OPPOSE slavery as such.

The further fact that ELSEWHERE in the Bible, there are some passages casting slavery in a morally more negative light, indicates the Bible’s deep AMBIGUITY with regard to the moral status of slavery.

Get it? Yet?

Leave a comment

About this Archive

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter