No slave race: no evolution

[Tomk80]

People, could we drop this. Or at least not let a pointless discussion with AV ruin a thread that was actually giving me some nice reading. Thanks.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'll let it go at this, Thaumaturgy; but for the record, I normally take people to task who say junk like this

The point still stands. I don't care how much you or I think slavery is an abomination, many christians in the past used the same bible you love so much to justify things you and I would never find acceptable.

Do you know WHY? Because the Bible is less than a clear moral guide on things.

If God was against Slavery all he'd have to do is have his only begotten son say "Slavery, bondage of another human being, ownership of another human being is WRONG."

That's it. Simple as pie.

------ by getting them to admit that the word "slave" is not used in any of those passages.

I know this will shock you because you aren't willing to acquiesce that someone might be one step ahead of you, but I specifically focus on specific passages as opposed to the numerous others that mention "servant" since on can, technically hire a servant.

I chose those because they say "own" and "buy a soul". That sort of thing.

Or the 7-year rule. One surely doesn't think that that kind of indentured servitude is "voluntary" when they are ultimately "set free", do they?

Yes, I know the little word games and I'm more than capable of dealing with them. (You keep forgetting, I'm obsessive about language and words. And I attempt to err on the side of conservative interpretation).

Then when they try to weasel out of it by saying that's the OT word for "slavery", or the word "slavery" came much later, I point out that it's not their call to re-write the Bible, and that their bias is showing.

You'll note I never said any such thing. Do you and your kind ever get tired of "strawman" type arguments?

Really, there are so many logic fallacies to choose from, diversify your pallette.

In short, by making them stick to Kingjamesese, I can cleary show that anyone who used the Bible to support slavery did so in spite of the Bible, not in respect to the Bible.

I allowed for that already. Or have you still not actually read my post?

I don't give a hang one way or another how someone wants to 'spin' the Bible. I've seen people rip apart language to justify excesses in the Bible so many times I'm not even willing to get into it anymore. I've seen people justify far less patently obvious points.

I'm not even willing to debate this point. I merely stated it as an aside to show my own personal feelings. I can understand your point. Sure, preists could "buy" people and you could claim that it was the hebrew word for "pay someone for their labor". I don't care one way or another.

However, the point still stands: Christians, using the exact same book on which you think you have a lock on the interpretation, to justify slavery where you cannot.

These were christians who were, I guarantee you, in no small part, as sure they were on God's side as you are.

That's the joy of religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who also can be bought and inherited as possessions.

Israel's laws concerning how these bond-servants were to be treated prevented them from becoming slaves --- get the picture now?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Israel's laws concerning how these bond-servants were to be treated prevented them from becoming slaves --- get the picture now?

So whats the difference between a slave and a bondservent? Is having a bondservent morally acceptable?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Israel's laws concerning how these bond-servants were to be treated prevented them from becoming slaves --- get the picture now?

Bond Servant:
S: (n) bond servant (someone bound to labor without wages)

(SOURCE)

Interesting. So a servant who is not paid is unemployed, but a bond servant isn't even paid.

Oh well. Too bad. Thankfully it is such fun to be owned by another human being that they do it for free!

 

[AV1611VET]

The point still stands. I don't care how much you or I think slavery is an abomination, many christians in the past used the same bible you love so much to justify things you and I would never find acceptable.

You'll never let go of the past, will you? You keep bringing it up, and bringing it up, and bringing it up. Is there a point you're trying to make?

I realize you uniformitarianist have a problem --- but this is ridiculous.

Can you name me one person on earth --- other than the posters on this site --- who references the Bible to justify slavery today? When I see Atheists here saying the Bible justifies slavery, or so-and-so had slaves in respect to the Bible, I have to cringe. (I know --- you don't --- but I sure don't see you correcting your friends, either.) They might think the Bible supports slavery --- I don't; and I really don't appreciate those who think I should think it as well.

I hate to say this, Thaumaturgy, but it's really a good point (or a really good point --- whatever), but if you guys were in control of America, I have a feeling this nation would lose its Abrahamic Covenant blessings in a hurry.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bond Servant:
S: (n) bond servant (someone bound to labor without wages)

(SOURCE)

Interesting. So a servant who is not paid is unemployed, but a bond servant isn't even paid.

Oh well. Too bad. Thankfully it is such fun to be owned by another human being that they do it for free!

Excuse me, but those bond servants were well fed and housed. I'm sure they didn't even need the money, knowing how God would have them treated.

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

How do you "buy" something without money?

Those servants were well-cared for.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Can you name me one person on earth --- other than the posters on this site --- who references the Bible to justify slavery today?

Keep up with the argument, AV. Few if anyone use the BIble today to justify slavery. BUT IT WAS USED IN THE PAST.

Note how the OP mentions the 19th century mind set.

When I see Atheists here saying the Bible justifies slavery, or so-and-so had slaves in respect to the Bible, I have to cringe. (I know --- you don't --- but I sure don't see you correcting your friends, either.) They might think the Bible supports slavery --- I don't; and I really don't appreciate those who think I should think it as well.

Whatever.

I hate to say this, Thaumaturgy, but it's really a good point (or a really good point --- whatever), but if you guys were in control of America, I have a feeling this nation would lose its Abrahamic Covenant blessings in a hurry.

Your mouth to God's ear.

I'd vote for a Christian for President, but would you vote for an Atheist?

(And don't worry, you Christians can keep on being the majority religion and feeling like the evil atheists are persecuting you right and left! It's win-win for the persecutionists! The minute I see an open atheist get a huge number of votes for president of the U.S. then we can talk.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Excuse me, but those bond servants were well fed and housed. I'm sure they didn't even need the money, knowing how God would have them treated.How do you "buy" something without money?

Those servants were well-cared for.

Oh please do then tell me how happy you'd be in similar circumstances. If being a "bond servant" is so good, why aren't you one? I'm sure there's someone somewhere who would house and feed you if you did anything they asked you to do. (And if the 7-year rule is in effect, presumably you aren't free to leave of your own accord until the "master"...er "non-paying employer" is obligated by law to set you free.)

This is insanity.

I get so sad to see people who supposedly have a brain justify this stuff.

Ugh.

OK, I'm out of this. This has derailed this particular thread too badly. I'm getting annoyed and I will only continue to respond and I don't need this annoyance at this time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Keep up with the argument, AV. Few if anyone use the BIble today to justify slavery.

BALONEY --- here's your precious NIV ---

He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.

Now if Jesus Christ can have slaves, is slavery wrong?

 

[Vene]

*stares at AV*
I honestly don't know what to say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh please do then tell me how happy you'd be in similar circumstances. If being a "bond servant" is so good, why aren't you one?

Excuse me, but remember we're talking the Old Testament here? And even if I did live back in the Old Testament, let me point this out ---

And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

What's that law doing in there, if these guys were oppressed by slavery? And if you read the context, as in vss. 1-6, you see how really oppressed these poor slaves were! [/sarcasm]In addition, what's up with this here?

10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?

Why would Paul lead a runaway "slave" to Christ, then send him back?

 

[True_Blue]

TrueBlue and juvenissun, I am sorry to see such things as you both have written. It seems neither of you have bothered to keep up with modern research wrt Neanderthals, and yet decide to speak up with statements that look ridiculous because they don't reflect reality at all.

Neanderthals have always been a particular interest of mine. They came so close to surviving; imagine, another kind of human sharing the planet with us! But you? All you can think of is they were dumb, we would make slaves of them, if they existed at all.

The bones of more than 400 Neanderthals have been found, including almost complete skeletons. DNA has been extracted from Neanderthal bone more than once, proving beyond a doubt that they were a related but separate species. Although there is speculation about interbreeding, the DNA evidence says there is no trace of unique Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. If the two did mate, none of that heritage has survived.

It is most likely that Neanderthals were as intelligent (their brains were on average a little larger) and as capable of making technologically advanced tools as early humans were. Research into tool-making and use confirms this. There is no doubt left that Neanderthals were as physically and genetically capable of complex language use as early humans were. There is little, if any, doubt left that at least some (and probably all) Neanderthals disposed of their dead ritually, and used flowers as part of that ritual. There is some evidence that they left food with their dead.

There is evidence they cared for their ill and old, such as the old man with a withered arm and other disabilities who most certainly would not have survived without someone caring for him and feeding him.

There is little to no doubt left that Neanderthals decorated either their bodies or possessions with mineral pigment. Hundreds of 'crayon' blocks of manganese dioxide or ochre have been found associated with Neanderthal habitation which could have few other uses. The crayons are worn in such a way as to indicare that the reddest crayons were the most used. There are also disputed but very suggestive finds of pierced animal teeth and bone that certainly appear to be for decorative use.

There is also the seldom discussed issue of clothing, because no clothing has survived. However, there is the evidence of tools: Neanderthals made a particular kind of flake tool, also made by early man, which is only used for making holes in hides or bark in order to use cord/fibre/sinew/etc. to attach pieces together in order to make clothing and containers.

A lot has been said about the physical 'awkwardness' of Neanderthals, but there is in fact no evidence to suggest they weren't as fit and agile as early humans to hunt and create. They hunted large land mammals successfully, and are now known to have also harvested both adult and immature seals. They also exploited clams and mussels.

There is growing speculation that an inability to have children as frequently as other humans is what doomed Neanderthals. In an era when early humans barely escaped extinction, the neanderthals lacked that one edge, and succumbed. There is also no evidence that early humans waged war on Neanderthals.

Here are some recent articles, though I doubt you two have any interest in reading them or the twenty or so other new articles I have found and read in the past few months alone.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0825203924.htm

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ls/hall-text/4

http://www.livescience.com/history/0...l-seafood.html

If one argues that no slave race existed because of interbreeding, I would point out that the breeding of animals leads to differentiation, not synthesis. That’s why we have distinct racial groups in the first place among humans and animals alike. Birds of a feather flock together. If a monkey, or a neanderthal, ever got supersmart, interbreeding and inbreeding would have destroyed the hypothetic supersmart characteristic and the lineage would regress back to the mean. An evolutionist must either believe that some races would be smarter than others, or the collective whole would gradually become smarter, like a world full of Einstein-like geniuses. I actually believe the opposite--that the human race on average has become less biologically intelligent over time, in conformity with the 2nd Law. Anyone who reads each of the English language Bible translations from the 1500s to the present can see a clear decay in the quality of the human mind reflected in the use of the English language.

If the complete skeletons are all like the skeleton in the picture on Wikipedia, we have 400 complete human skeletons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal.

My art is absolutely awful. Also, the aborigines on Tazmania were shockingly destitute, according to the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, lacking fire, bows and arrows, and other basics that one would think are absolutely necessary for survival.

 

[AV1611VET]

Un - stinkin' - believable --- you "Bible scholars" are a real piece of work.

 

[AV1611VET]

/thread

 

[True_Blue]

Hmm, interesting. Thankfully the Christian faith and the Bible was never used to justify slavery or the evil evolutionists would have had their way and established slave-states!











(SOURCES)

So please, let's not use this insulting line of reasoning that somehow "evolution" leads to "slavery". It's a ridiculous and thinly veiled attack and argumentum ad absurdum.

Please, dial down the rhetoric, True_blue. And in the meantime, please do us a favor and read your bible.

Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


The Bible,rightly or wrongly quoted or abused, has lent more than it's fair share in the idealogical war to establish "slave races", .

Thaumaturgy, I have no problem, legal or moral, with the verses in the Bible regarding slavery. I'd be happy to discuss those verses in more detail on another thread.

 

[Vene]

If one argues that no slave race existed because of interbreeding, I would point out that the breeding of animals leads to differentiation, not synthesis. That’s why we have distinct racial groups in the first place among humans and animals alike. Birds of a feather flock together. If a monkey, or a neanderthal, ever got supersmart, interbreeding and inbreeding would have destroyed the hypothetic supersmart characteristic and the lineage would regress back to the mean.

Nobody tell him that is not how natural selection and genetic drift work. It's funnier if he's wrong.

An evolutionist must either believe that some races would be smarter than others, or the collective whole would gradually become smarter, like a world full of Einstein-like geniuses.

I see he also doesn't understand that the term "race" is meaningless in biology.

I actually believe the opposite--that the human race on average has become less biologically intelligent over time, in conformity with the 2nd Law.

How in the world does f=ma relate to biology?

If the complete skeletons are all like the skeleton in the picture on Wikipedia, we have 400 complete human skeletons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal.

Yes, Neanderthals were human, that is why there are in the genus homo. The differences are subtle, but they are there, especially in the skull. Play close attention to the brow.

Compared to this:

My art is absolutely awful. Also, the aborigines on Tazmania were shockingly destitute, according to the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, lacking fire, bows and arrows, and other basics that one would think are absolutely necessary for survival.

My art sucks too, what's your point? Especially when things like this are made.

 

[True_Blue]

Hmm, I managed to dig up this article. I'm not sure the reasoning convinces me just from reading a press release. I'm also quite certain I've seen another article about something similar but I can't remember where.

Here's an except from the quoted article that makes me stroke my chin:

"They discovered that the brain at the time of birth was of exactly the same size as a typical human newborn. It had a volume of about 400 cubic centimetres. However, the skeleton was considerably more robustly formed than that of a modern human newborn."

It's rather difficult to study the cognitive function of Neanderthal newborns if all you have is a skull sans brain, and the brain is exactly the same size as a human baby. "Skeleton robustness" seems racial, not evolutionary.

"As far as birth, development of the brain and life history are concerned, we are astonishingly similar to each other", says Dr. Ponce de León.

hmmmmm......

 

[True_Blue]

I'm feeling quite aggressive today, I'll settle for pointing and screaming!

Honestly when I see this type of argument it annoys me greatly. As you say "race" and moral issues are not part of biology. It is what it is.

True_Blue, the legal-trained officer of a biotech firm posts a pure and simple StrawMan argument which is little more than a veiled ad hominem of some vague sort and then procedes to build a debate around it which seems to indicate an evolution = pro-slavery, anti-evolution = anti-slavery false dichotomy.

How many logic errors can one fit in a single OP?

(Oh and by-the-way, I was wrong in castigating Holy Roller he wasn't the one who promulgated this silly argument, but he certainly missed the point I was making).

Christianity is based on the inherent equality of the human race. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." In God's eyes, everyone is equally loved by God and equally sinful. God loves Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa just the same. Do you really believe those two people are equal? I do. Evolution is inherently inequitable. It's impossible under any coherent theory of evolution that uses actual human observation to suppose that the entire erectus classification could evolve at the same rate everywhere in the vast world. If evolution had any semblance of credibility, the European explorers would have encountered races of retarded people on various geographically remote regions and islands. Instead, Europeans discovered technologically and socially retarded people, all of whom had the same brilliant minds as the Europeans, and all with critical moral failings, just like the Europeans.

Thaumaturgy, you didn't bother criticizing the insults that have been thrown at me earlier in this thread, and you didn't bother scrutinizing the language I used in my original post meant to avoid allegations of racism against the people reading this thread. But the reality is that race is inextricably tied to evolution, and for that reason, human evolution is really an archaic notion in the 21st century. Few on either side of the debate are racists anymore. I probably would have been racist had I lived in Darwin's time.

 

[True_Blue]

Or the 7-year rule. One surely doesn't think that that kind of indentured servitude is "voluntary" when they are ultimately "set free", do they?

I do. I am a "slave" in the Biblical sense to the Air Force for the next 6 years and 5 months. That's pretty close to 7 years.