hey defenstrator, i hear what you're saying. i know how the "pick it apart" game works. you look for the section of text that supports your position, and you take it, in or out of context, and put it out there and say "look, this proves my point!" and if you're familiar enough with the text, you can prove one thing, or you can prove the opposite, in so many cases and about so many subjects. i know that game. Christians and non-Christians and anti-Christians play it alike. it is mostly a losing battle for all sides, as i've seen it, as folks with formulated opinions so rarely change them based on an argument proposed solely with the purpose of destroying what one already believes.

your centurian example is getting there, as it involves Jesus himself. but your Colossians reference is missing one key thing, key to me, in that it isn't a quote directly attributed to Jesus. maybe you can even find some direct quote attributed to Jesus where he says he's pro-slavery, or pro-mysogyny, or pro-war, though i don't know... my ultimate point is this: if you read the New Testament, and you are able to understand and digest the teachings, the point, the message of the words attributed to Jesus himself, you will NOT come away being pro-war, or pro-slavery or any of that shit. that was not his message. and if you think it was, then i'd say that makes me sad, because it's exactly those kind of (in my opinion) misinterpretations that have us where we are today, in a nation that according to the US census is made up of people, something like 90 percent of which declare themselves Christian, many of which are full of hatred, or racism, or desire to go wipe XYZ off the planet. don't be part of that camp. that's why it's so easy to shit-talk religion. because of so many folks shoving their misinterpretation down the throat of anyone and everyone.

if you think my interpretation of Jesus' message is wrong, that's fine. it might make me sad, but it's not my bag to get anyone to think otherwise. but i tend to think that it's the proper (in my estimation) and positive interpretation of the message that made folks like MLK jr so great, one of the finest folks to live in recent history. i think his interpretation was pretty spot on.

let's not argue this though, ok? because nobody ever wins. and that's how wars are started. if you wanna take that for me admitting defeat, then please do.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Are you that literal?

Well, it seems the subject at hand kinda calls for it.

I didn't write the fucking thing.

this is where context can be important. in this day and age, the words "master" and "servant" might be more appropriately described with "worker" and "employer". the point of that stuff isn't to say folks should be whipped and beaten because they're slaves. the point, the positive message that many good Christian folk come away with is this : don't bitch and moan about your life, take what your life holds for you and step up and take it, and do your best with it, and do your duty. if your duty is to scrub plates at Electrical Audio, don't be a whiny pain in the ass, scrub the plates and make your master (Steve) happy. think of the potential context in which it's positive. that's something that lotsa Christians do: look for the positive spin on stuff. see the bright side. if anything, you can probably trace that back even further to the Hindu system, where (as i understand it from school anyways) there are separate castes of folks, and people in the lower caste recognize that somebody has to be there, and it's their deal. kinda like a janitor, or an intern, or somebody picking beans on a farm. it's not a glorious job, but it has to be done. and the folks doing it might as well not be pissy, but rather be happy that they're doing what they're supposed to do.

the counter-argument that is proposed against this is that this notion i describe is being used as a tool to keep people in bondage, to dominate people into submission, to control them. if you'd like, i'm sure that any intelligent person can pick through any single one of our lives, mine, yours, and find all kinds of examples of what we are controlled by. the ultimate good in Christianity, i think, not getting into salvation type notions or afterlife stuff, is that if you have to choose whether to sumbit to something, why not submit to something positive, that's truly about kindness, and love, and treating folks as best you can? i'd argue that way too many americans have submitted themselves to the opposite, which is capitalism. fuck all y'all i'm gonna get my money. i need a new car. i need to buy a new XYZ so i can impress somebody. now THAT'S slavery.

whatever. i'm really so done now. i won't ever stop if i don't just stop. i'll just keep ranting forever. color me off this discussion for good. over a berr, in person, fine. but no more here, not for me.

Christopher wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Are you that literal?

Well, it seems the subject at hand kinda calls for it.

The interpretation of great literature calls for literalism? An interesting take!

Scratch even a millimeter below the surface and who knows what you will find. Perhaps great art. Or you can continue to pull quotes from a Googled "slavery" and "bible" search and use them to serve your purposes.

Literalism in the face of great literature is lazy and irresponsible, particularly when you are smart enough to know better.

Christopher wrote:I didn't write the fucking thing.

No, but you're doing a damned fine job of re-writing it.

Paul! Endorsing slavery!

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Paul! Endorsing slavery!

ok, I may be wrong but perhaps he was saying that it's ok to beat your slaves until they understand that slavery is bad ?

GuyMercier wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Paul! Endorsing slavery!

ok, I may be wrong but perhaps he was saying that it's ok to beat your slaves until they understand that slavery is bad ?

I'm going to go home now. I'm very sorry that I posted this topic.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

Christopher wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Are you that literal?

Well, it seems the subject at hand kinda calls for it.

The interpretation of great literature calls for literalism? An interesting take!

The "subject at hand" I was referring to was the Bible, not the whole of literature. When you have something as important as a text considered to be the perfect word of a perfect being, inspired in a perfect way - that is NEVER to change, by the "creator's" own admission - i'd say that calls for some literal interpretations. Lots of Christians would even agree with me in this regard.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Or you can continue to pull quotes from a Googled "slavery" and "bible" search and use them to serve your purposes.

Whoah. That would've been so badass if that were what i had actually done. Too bad for you the question isn't where i got my quotes (ultimately, the bible itself), but, rather, the fact they're even in there. You can keep changing the focus of the argument if you like, but it doesn't help your case any.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

Christopher wrote:I didn't write the fucking thing.

No, but you're doing a damned fine job of re-writing it.

Sheeeeeit....if ONLY. I'd re-write that fucker into the coolest-looking blank book you've ever seen.

S U S E J U J J
J E S U S E J E S U S J
S J E S U S J E S U S U
E E J S S S U S J S
J S E U U U S E E
U S S J J S S E J U
S U J U E E J E
S J E S U S J E S J E S J J S U
J J J E S U S E S S U J E E S S
E E E J S U S E J J E S U U S
S S S J S E U S S E
J U U U U S S E E J
S S S S S U S U J J
U E E J J E J E S E
J S J J J U J E J E S U S E S U E J
E E J E E S E S E S J E S U S J E S
S J E S U S S J S U E S U J E
J J S E U S J S U S S U J
J E E U S S J E S E U S E J U E E
E J S E E J E S U S S J J E S U S
S U U J E S U S S U E U
U S J S E S J S

Come back, we didn't mean it. Seriously, I've actually enjoyed this.


Faiz

kerble wrote:Seriously, I've actually enjoyed this.

Me too. Questions are supposed to reinforce your beliefs anyway, right?

seriously, I think that the bible is crap literature
it's truly dated, not even as boring as Dune, not one bit as fascinating as Zelazny and certainly not as cool as the Illuminati trilogy

Good night.