deafening silence

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:04 am

john wrote:
Frank Harrist wrote:Ok lets keep it archaeological, guys.

sorry, frank -

just trying to figure out how the neandertals decided the number of holes to put into one of their flutes.

j

They counted their fingers. Let's stay on topic.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:27 am

i have been told some people have asked me serious questions and i have ignored them. well it ispossible that the writing style of the post has indicated to me that the question is not a serious one, or i missed it. or haven't had time to answer it.

remember tech's question? i gave him the information i had and he still wasn't satisfied so you may not like the answers i give.

but if you would re-post them in the appropriate form seriously, i will try to get to them when i can.

of course some questions have already been asked and answered so a little ressearch into the thread may solve some of them.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:39 am

A little research into the thread will also find those questions without them having to be reposted.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:07 am

A little research into the thread will also find those questions without them having to be reposted

you must think i am retired as well. sorry to disappoint but i have very little time on my hands so a re-posting would be appreciated.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:14 am

Spend less time posting and more time reading then.

There is a good lad.

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:42 am

You can start Here.

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:48 am

sorry, but i am not going to hunt down any questions--re-post them in a serious post and theni will deal with them i have little time.

Tech · Post by **Tech** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:45 am

Sorry Arch but you didnt answer my questions , you quoted from some site that gave bizzare twists on the questions I asked, My points were valid and very simple , your reply suggested that the bible cant be taken literally and if it says one thing it will usually mean another , and that we cant see it because we havnt looked at it from the right prespective .
If you want to prove your point a straight answer to a straight question would be appreciated , if you have to twist everything to fit your point of view........then I will leave you with your blinkers on .

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:40 am

archaeologist wrote:sorry, but i am not going to hunt down any questions--re-post them in a serious post and theni will deal with them i have little time.

We have.

Many times.

With repetitive redundancy.

You have ignored them.

Repeatedly.

In the rain.

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:48 pm

If you want to prove your point a straight answer to a straight question would be appreciated , if you have to twist everything to fit your point of view

i gave you the source material so you could read it for yourself. i did that to avoid the very charge you are accusing me. i didn't spin or twist anything but presented what we know on the topic.

read it and make up your own mind, i can see a difference in the words slavery and servants and how they are used. it is quite obvious that the biblical meaning was not always refering to the african situation of the early stages of american life. when israel was sent off into captivity, they endured conditions of slavery that rivaled the negro internment.

plus abrahm was by far of a higher quality than most slave owners of the 17th, 18th & 19th centuries thus his servants were treated far better than those shipped to america.

in interpretation, context, culture among other factors play an important role along with the understanding of the interpreter. if you want to make a cursory judgment upon verses of the Bible based upon superficial reading or study and ignore the other elements that are needed to get a correct view of what is being said then i can't help you.

even in modern life interpretation context plays a large role. i know as i have to face it everyday and to limit a word to one meaning just means you are not giving the passages a fair hearing but restrict it to what you want it to say which then either influences or angers your own moral code.

needless to say, if you want to find fault with the Bible that is not hard to do, it takes honesty and openness to see what it really is saying whether you like it or not. if yo are hung up on the usage of the word slavery then you may have a problem you needto get over first before proceeding with your investigation.

Tech · Post by **Tech** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:09 pm

Arch
I did read what you posted , and didnt beleive the spin they put on it.
If the bible is for the common man , why should he have to study and contemplate every point?? Also I didnt want any source material I wanted to know how you could defend a simple statement that wasnt taken out of context .
ie: "That its ok to beat a slave man or woman as long as he/she is able to stand after 2 days becuase he is your property"

I read the passage it isnt out of context and it cant be taken any other way , I know you dont have a straight answer , and I am not hung up on the word slavery .It was a simple question can this be defended ?
And the simple answer...No

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:14 pm

So where is the evidence?

Oh wait . . . he has none.

--J.D.

ReneDescartes · Post by **ReneDescartes** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:18 pm

If you guys continue to stick in the banderillas,the poor bull will not even make it till the end of the corrida .Olé

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:34 pm

You guys may enjoy this dissertation on the church and slavery.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/slavery.html

Having laid claim to an entire continent and eradicated most of its native peoples, the Christian conquerors of North America came into possession of an immense land. The rapid exploitation of its potential required a vast labour force and, until a surge in European migration in the later 19th century, this was taken against its will out of Africa, leaving the demography of that continent permanently damaged. On the southern plantations of tobacco and cotton the captive labourers enriched an elite of white landowners who themselves provided trade and custom for the northeast and the Old World. Christianity, malleable as ever, morphed not only into the self-justifying ideology of the racist southern oligarchs, but also into the uplifting faith of freedom and salvation of the slaves themselves.
Quite some trick for the cult of a west Asian sun-god

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:25 pm

I know you dont have a straight answer , and I am not hung up on the word slavery .It was a simple question can this be defended

sure i have a straight answer. i have never thought about it. growing up in the new testament word, we never had slaves and this verse was never reay an issue in the church i was in.

can it be defended? i am sure it can but again you would have to go to the scholars who study this particular issue. i am also sure the word 'beat' may not refer to solely a physical thrashing. which brings us back to culture, context, and interpretation of the original language.

if you take those verses literaly, are you not acting like the christians that are charged with taking the Bible literally? or is it okay for you to take literal passages that make little sense to you but it is not okay for those who folow the Bible to do so?