I've GOT to get to Wal-Mart!

[Avatar]

You know that the "vet" in his screen name indicates that he's a military vet? If i recall correctly he stated that in the other thread.

I suppose you're canadian, but here in texas you're in some deep stew if you make fun of disabled military vets.

If you take care to look back in the thread to the posts involved, you'll see that AV was responding to one post, while I quoted another along with his to make a point.

I guess there in Texas deep thinking isn't stew-worthy.

 

[lawtonfogle]

AV, once again, showing how little his opinion is worth.

Personally I consider someone who knows something upside down as knowing it backwards, meaning they don't know it.

Suppose we want to keep our friends?

Personally my friends would enjoy a talk with AV. They like talking to anyone who is not spouting out racism or some such thing (and while you could argue some of his views suggest such things, he is not in fact spouting it out anywhere I see... of course, I could be wrong... but like always, give me evidence to back that up, aka a link to a post where he is being quite racist).

Fun how the stuff in the () took up more than the stuff out of it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

They do not condemn "god" for anything. They are saying that the fictional character portrayed should have been condemned if he existed.

Here, lets put in some computer logic.

If(Flood_happened)
{
God = What_ever_you_call_someone_who_drowns_many_people;
}
else
{
Situation = why_worry_about_it;
}
next_action = getting_on_with_our_lives;

Thats how they think to some degree.

Or think of someone who says evolution is wrong and doesn't exist.

How can it be wrong if it doesn't exist?

 

[lawtonfogle]

You remind me of a lot of people I know. I once won five Euchre tournaments in a row. If you play Euchre with me, you'll see me do stupid things like going alone without even looking at my cards first. Yet, everyone I talk to always knows someone who "lives for the game", but when I ask them to get together for a night of Euchre, guess what? I get, "I can't play very well," or, "I'm too busy", or "One of these nights..."

And I have won multiple chess tournaments (not all first place, but in top 3 (yes, that is out of more than 3, it was a state championship)). But I don't go around using that as a reason why I should be listened too on anything other than chess. I don't even put it in my resume (though maybe I should now that I think about it, since even though that has almost no relationship to the job, the HR people probably thinks it does).

See, even just talking to AV improved my resume.

 

[Nathan Poe]

They say people who are blind can compensate by hearing better. If you think people like me are $1.98 worth of wasted chemicals, that's your prerogative --- and your problem.

$1.98? AV holds himself in rather high esteem.

 

[Vene]

$1.98? AV holds himself in rather high esteem.

I'm sure he's worth more than that.
Just for fun

 

[AV1611VET]

See, even just talking to AV improved my resume.

And your reps!

(Congrats on your Chess Tournaments! I've won a couple small ones, myself.)

 

[Garyzenuf]

They do not condemn "god" for anything. They are saying that the fictional character portrayed should have been condemned if he existed.

This is starting to hurt my head....

 

[necroforest]

I know things my friends have not a clue about. I can explain why it is impossible to have a search algorithm of O(1), but my friends don't even know what O(1) means. It is a question of if the information has been shared in the friendship or not.

I'd like to see a proof of that

Seems entirely dependent on the structure of the data being searched.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And let me be equally plain that if your questions and remarks here are any indication of your conversations with your friends, then I'd say you guys need a class in Basic Theology.

You have your opinion. Obviously if you had indicated you were familiar with basic facts of theological history or philosophy I'd probably assume you were making a valid point.

No one, in my opinion, would say he has friends that know theology upside-down and inside-out on one hand, and wonder why the Bible supports slavery on the other.

As I said you are entitled to your opinion, I believe I posted an earlier Strongs Concordance on the Hebrew word ebed as used in the Bible (LINK).

Now, of course, how you can justify saying that it is somehow impossible that a word that was, within Hebrew used commonly to mean slave (as well as servant) coupled with the idea of "Freeing someone" after 7 years wouldn't allow for people to see that as treating slavery with kid gloves is beyond me. But you are free to treat the language of the Bible as you wish. It's your faith that is apparently on the line here.

If you have a problem I recommend you take it up with the ancient Hebrews who gave you your Old Testament.

Now, of course, my friends and I disagree, as I disagree with you. However that doesn't mean your points are in any way meaningful. Specifically because your point doesn't even have the inkling that the Hebrew word might allow, and is "commonly" used to mean slave.

At least when I make my point I do allow that your use of the term "servant" may be applicable to some degree...except where one is "bought", "later freed" or has a physical procedure done on them by the "owner".

The fact that you fail to grant that these could mean actual slavery means you aren't playing fair. You are denying the possibility that the other side might, just might, be right.

But then you never do grant that. That is where you fail miserably as a debator. In order to win a debate, most debators will tell you it helps to try to understand that which you are debating against. See, in order for us to take you seriously we have to understand that you might take our points occasionally seriously enough to actually consider that we are not all morons.

But then you'd reveal some weakness and God would be angry with you I suppose. You sit up there with God on the armrest of his Throne and know the Truth. Bully for you. Too bad you "present" it so abysmally.

You remind me of a lot of people I know. I once won five Euchre tournaments in a row. If you play Euchre with me, you'll see me do stupid things like going alone without even looking at my cards first. Yet, everyone I talk to always knows someone who "lives for the game", but when I ask them to get together for a night of Euchre, guess what? I get, "I can't play very well," or, "I'm too busy", or "One of these nights..."

-yawn-

More "games" talk. Very exciting. Maybe if you could talk up some philosophy, science or history you could impress me.

I think I've shown my facility with all these topics. But do please go on about Euchre. It's ever so fascinating.

Card games can take a hike. They are a gift from God. They should be destroyed. God gifts you with card playing skill. Card games are a waste of time.

Blah blah blah.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is starting to hurt my head....

Gary, please listen to an atheist when I say:

I often utilize this "dual approach" to debate. Not because I actually believe the excess I am talking about from the Bible necessary happened or is inerrantly true, but rather that it is a form of argumentum ad absurdum.

When debating Biblical Literalists it is often helpful to point out the absurd lengths and contrast those with other absurdities.

For instance since most Creationists never bother to even sit in on one single Geology 101 class in their lives (for what reason I can only imagine is laziness, Geology 101 is a standard freshman level intro science class), so they can't understand when they make ridiculous claims about how the Flood would cause this or that. So after a while it becomes necessary to point out the flaws with a hyperliteralist interpretation of the Bible which is really what underlays their support for the Noachian Flood.

They can't be expected to understand science so maybe if we asked them the questions about other aspects that are not science-related but require an absurdity to explain a literal interpretation it will point up, by example, the failings of hyper-literalism.

The only reason it would "hurt your head" is if you are unfamiliar with how people debate these topics.

As I pointed out earlier, I'm a geologist who, just by chance is also an atheist so I don't believe in the Noachian Flood (because I'm a geologist) and I don't believe in supernatural events (because I'm an atheist).

Geologists need not be atheists, in fact most probably aren't. I've never met that many atheist geologists. Most that I knew were Christians. But the point is if I wish to debate against the Noachian Flood I can take the science approach (which usually fails because the Creationists are intellectually too lazy to take a simple geology class before they start spouting about what the rocks should look like or do look like), or I can attack the debate from the "literalist" stance.

It's a strategy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

They say people who are blind can compensate by hearing better. If you think people like me are $1.98 worth of wasted chemicals, that's your prerogative --- and your problem.

I don't think you are a "waste", but your debate style, predicated on ignorance and pride of ignorance, is what I find to be a waste.

Is that part of you? Do you have to be ignorant of the history and philosophy of your faith? Do you have to be ignorant of science when you "have a go" at scientists?

You see, AV, again, it isn't what your faith icon is that I find offensive, it's what your approach to the debate is that I find offensive.

I don't believe anyone is a waste. But if someone comes to me and "debates" me on an issue (like science) and acts in the manner you act (bluster, pride and ignorance) then I will respond as I do. Science, history, philosopy, thought, and yes, Religion, are important enough to me that I want to learn it. Not just "spout it" as you do.

I doubt very highly that you have ever learned much of value from talking to scientists. Especially if they disagree with you. You can't come out of your little world view. That's fine. It's a standard human response.

But your wish to hide from the world is hardly served by being snarky about science which you don't understand as you did in the OP of this thread.

You are scared of the bear yet you poke it with a sharp stick. What, exactly, do you expect the bear to do? It has big claws and can move quickly. You don't appear to have brought anything to the encounter but that tiny pokey stick.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, of course, my friends and I disagree, as I disagree with you. However that doesn't mean your points are in any way meaningful. Specifically because your point doesn't even have the inkling that the Hebrew word might allow, and is "commonly" used to mean slave.

If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.

 

[Tomk80]

If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.

Because it couldn't have anything to do with the (in)competence of the translators.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.

I suspect that "servant" doesn't necessarily mean "free employee" to people of 17th century England.

But if you want to say it was "divine", well then you have retreated (as usual) to the "unfalsifiable". That is your stock in trade.

It is the intellectual equivalent of running away or saying "just becuz!"

Servant: (a person working in the service of another (especially in the household)) (SOURCE)

You'll note at all points in this debate I have been very specific to point out that the word "servant" could mean someone who is "hired"...I have NOT said (nor would anyone be able to support) the concept that "servants" cannot be slaves.

If you have a problem with the subtleties of English as you have a problem with the common usage of Hebrew terms, I suggest you take it up with the people who provided you with the language.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'd like to see a proof of that

Seems entirely dependent on the structure of the data being searched.

Easy, but it is a play on definitions. An O(1) means you go and pick it up, meaning you already know where it is, meaning you don't search. Therefore, an O(1) algorithm for retreating data is not a 'search' algorithm. That and there is a much more complicated proof that in classical computing no algorithm can be better than O(nlog(n)), though I have not memorized the proof.

 

[Bombila]

If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.

Are you implying that God found the predatory and frequently unjust and inequitable 'hiring' practices of his Chosen People so embarassing that he inspired the KJV translators to use the English word 'servant' instead of 'slave' so as to cloud the issue? Because that's what it sounds like.

I am looking at the more relevant passages, and have bolded phrases that are significant to me:

Exodus 21:7-11 (King James Version)
1Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

The Hebrew man and and the man's daughter are both bought, purchased, money has been paid for them. The daughter has been sold by her father. Money has not been paid to these servants. We don't know who benefits from the sale of the manservant, but clearly, her father has received money for the daughter to be a maidservant.

And we have the information about menservants' families: if the man had a family when he was bought, he gets to take them with him when freed. But if the master has given him a wife, whom he subsequently has children by, the master gets to keep the wife and children, which leads us to the nasty implication of the next verses, where by the love the servant has for his wife and children, he enters lifelong servitude in order to stay with them.

Now in the case of the daughter sold to be a 'maidservant', we find that she may have been 'betrothed' to the buyer or to his son, which sounds like a marriage, does it not? But it is not a marriage, as is made clear by the rest of the passage: she must be pleasing to her master, and if not, she may be redeemed (bought back), but not sold to a foriegner (oh, good). And finally, if he is crass enough to neither sell her back to her family (or someone 'not a foriegner'), nor feed and clothe her after taking another 'wife', then he has the option of booting her out the door with no money.

I don't care how you twist these passages or insist that 'servant' is correct usage because sometimes, for men, not for women, the duration of servitude was fixed, the bottom line is that the situation described, particularly for the woman, is slavery. You can opine that the man is in fact an indentured servant, and possibly be righteous in doing so, except for that horrifying business of holding his family hostage to entice him to become a slave. But for the woman, it is bleak indeed - she must be pleasing, there is no duration limit on her service. And in the end, she is put out on the street penniless - to go where and do what?

AV, you may be able to justify such practices with tales of how much better it was to be a 'servant' than to eke out a chancy living as a poor landless person of the time, and how strict the rules were governing treatment of such individuals - masters did have to guarantee to feed them, after all, though a servant who was starving to death wouldn't be of much use - but the fact remains that the laws and conditions described, especially in the case of the maidservant (and I wonder about that delicate euphemism) have been called slavery by pretty much any culture that included slavery as a legal practice.

Calling it anything else will be seen as mere squirming around instead of accepting that the human condition then was not perfect, and the Hebrews had slaves. Christians do themselves no favours when they indulge in semantical pretenses.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If it's so "commonly used", why didn't the King James translators translate it "slave"? I suspect there was a reason they didn't --- a divine reason.

Or a politically correct one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Calling it anything else will be seen as mere squirming around instead of accepting that the human condition then was not perfect, and the Hebrews had slaves. Christians do themselves no favours when they indulge in semantical pretenses.

The Hebrews didn't have slaves. These laws were written to prevent slavery, not indulge in it. And as far as your problem with how they ran things back then, here's a little excerpt from Adam Clarke on Exodus 21:7 ---

Verse 7 [If a man sell his daughter] This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress-when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back; and he had this permission only while she was unmarriageable. It may appear at first view strange that such a law should have been given; but let it be remembered, that this servitude could extend, at the utmost, only to six years; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of apprenticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the master so much per week during that period.

And if you have a problem with it after reading that, I guess you'll have to take it up with God, Himself.

As for me, I shall reiterate, these laws were written to prevent slavery, not indulge in it.

And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

 

[Bombila]

The Hebrews didn't have slaves. These laws were written to prevent slavery, not indulge in it. And as far as your problem with how they ran things back then, here's a little excerpt from Adam Clarke on Exodus 21:7 ---And if you have a problem with it after reading that, I guess you'll have to take it up with God, Himself.

As for me, I shall reiterate, these laws were written to prevent slavery, not indulge in it.

I certainly do have a problem with it, and an external apologetic hardly is consistent with your own insistence on being able to understand every word of the Bible by reading the Bible. In which no mention of limited duration is made with regards to the maidservant. Even granted the desperate-contingency-daddy-is-broke rationale, it is a disgusting practice. A law to prevent slavery says 'no buying and selling of other human beings', not 'long term rental okay if yer broke', (and buyer gets to keep the wife and kids acquired during service).

"I'm so sorry, twelve year old daughter, but daddy is going to sell you to the nice man that has the big vinyard for seven years (or until he gets tired of you and gets a new girl). You'll have to sleep with the old guy, but he'll feed you and you needn't run around naked. Have a nice life, seeya - maybe - when yer nineteen."

If I believed there were a God to take it up with, I would. But since you're the man who defends this kind of loathesome material, I figured you'd like to have a go at it.

It is slavery. Admit it. It was a common feature of life back then, in many places. You might argue that the duration limit - seven years - was more enlightened than lifetime slavery and have a foot to stand on. But to blithely insist that it was a good practice and God should be praised for it should be more than even you can stand. I don't see you as the kind of person who would normally be defending this passage if you hadn't a bee in your bonnet about the origins of scripture. I give you the benefit of the doubt on many Biblical issues, AV - it's your theology - but on this, the plain words written in the KJV are damning, damning, damning. And you should be able to read them as plainly as I can.