Thanks for all the posts. I suppose quantity trumps quality in the modern era.

Something good and something bad.

The good: I am sort of a connoisseur of other people’s errors (NEVER my own, of course); and you have generously provided me with a veritable FEAST of errors and misrepresentations within your posts. For that I thank you; you are truly magnanimous and I applaud your generosity.

The bad: I do not have much time today. Hence, though you have thoughtfully provided such a monstrous buffet of errors, I must (lamentably) content myself with merely sampling here and there, like a famous food critic tasting food at a five-star restaurant in Paris during a Master Chef’s contest.

First, a very minor point (like an appetizer). You work up an enormous amount of indignation about the post #103 that Drill wrote. You sputter about it. You shudder over it. You shriek about it. You become discombobulated over it. Unfortunately, Drill did not write post #103. You obviously meant some other post. This is a very small thing, normally not worthy of even mentioning. But you must understand that people like you, who are inordinately fond of Making a Big Stink, must be very careful about all the little odors you produce as byproducts; they can be distracting to the audiences appreciation of the Big Stink you are attempting to manufacture. Just a helpful editorial hint. No charge or thanks necessary.

Second, I am not a Marcionite. I do believe in a sort of temporary ‘duality’ insomuch as Evil has not been utterly destroyed as of yet; however I believe it will be destroyed, as outlined in prophetic language within the New Testament. I do not pretend, as many do, to understand exactly how prophetic and symbolic much of that language actually is or the exact details of how the final victory of Joy and Life over Despair and Death will take place. As I have said frequently in the past, there is much about the OT (and even some in the NT) that I do not understand in the light of the NT (the killing of Canaanite babies in cribs by Hebrew soldiers comes to mind). However that does not make me a ‘Marcionite’. It makes me a ‘Person Who Does Not Understand Everything’. Perhaps you might want to coin a word for that sort of person; best steer away from the four letter words like ‘liar’, as they violate both truth and decorum, neither of which usually concern you very much, but really should. I’ll not hold MY breath, though.

Third, most if not all of the OT Law is concerned with regulating the EFFECTS of sin, ‘Thou shall not kill’, ‘Thou shall not bear false witness’ are all statements regulating the outward deeds that are manifested by sin, which is first and foremost an attitude of the heart. But were we to follow Christ and do as He commands and truly have His heart, as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount and in the whole of His teaching, the Law would be (and is, really) extraneous, since the bad things that emanate from the wayward human heart would cease to have their driving potential. So the evil things like armed robbery and adultery AND slavery would indeed disappear. There would then be no need for the ‘Law’. But as I said, Christ did NOT abolish slavery, or sin. It goes on. And on and on. He gave humans a way out of the slavery to sin and Anti-Joy, however.

Forth, I generally appreciate Jon Rowe; I have learned much from him when he sticks to his primary interest of detailing the ‘degree of orthodoxy’ of the Founders of this country. I flagged on him when he starts deciding who is and who is not a born-again Christian. That is unknowable.

Fifth, I blush and stammer a bit at you’re flattering me that I am so devilishly clever (although not of good character). However, again you are quite wrong about the clever bit (probably right about the lack of character, though). Our brains, yours and mine, are pretty tiny. The universe is pretty huge. And what lies beyond the universe, even bigger.

I would suggest that you spend a bit less time playing poker and a bit more time hitting the books, Night Train. A library, perhaps, would be just the ticket for you to start on a much-needed journey of discovery.

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

Report comment to moderator

I was in the middle of trying to survive the late stages of an online poker tournament when I wrote that response to Drill, and I neglected to make something clear.

When Jon Rowe said that Jesus never abolished slavery, he was using it in the legal sense, meaning to forbid something that had previously been allowed. Like slavery. That’s where we get the term abolitionist movement. Rowe was making the point that, because Christians claim to believe that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same being, and since Jehovah clearly and repeatedly blessed and encouraged the owning of slaves in the OT, if slavery is no longer allowed, and is now a wicked sin, it seems that Jesus, as the incarnation of Jehovah, would have said something to that effect. But he didn’t. And Drill knew exactly what Rowe meant, but he can’t admit the truth about the Bible and slavery, and so he tried to derail the argument by being cute and pretending that when Rowe said “abolish” he meant “eradicate”, which is nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me what lengths self described “Bible believers” such as Drill will go to in order to avoid facing what the Bible actually teaches about various subjects.

Report comment to moderator

Of course most non-Christians will not read the Bible anyway, and they don’t really have a reason to,

Christians are even worse. Most of them don’t read their bible either, and if they do it’s the same old passages over and over in many cases, such as Psalms, Proverbs, the Gospels, etc. So they’re grossly ignorant of what the Bible actually says in a great many places and about some serious topics, such as slavery. What’s even worse is when these same biblically illiterate Christians argue with those of us who actually do know something about the Bible. A few months ago, when I commented on a thread that Jehovah/Jesus approves of slavery, somebody said I was an idiot who’ve obviously never read the Bible, and that “the Exodus narrative” makes clear how Jehovah/Jesus feels about slavery. I told him that instead of babbling about “the Exodus narrative”, he should actually read Exodus. If he did, he’d read in Exodus 21 about God telling the Israelites that they may own slaves, and it’s OK if a slave dies a day or two after a severe beating my his owner, because he’s merely property. Yes, “the Exodus narrative” really shows how God hates slavery. No, it merely shows that he’s a racist, who didn’t want his favorite race enslaved. He wanted them to do the enslaving of others.

Of course, even worse than these guys are people like Drill, who know plenty about what the bible actually says, but prefer to ignore, contradict, and evade it when it suits their purpose.

Report comment to moderator

Jon Rowe: Contrary to YOUR own assertation in post 101, I NEVER asserted that Christ ‘abolished’ slavery ‘in the Bible’ in post 86.

First, he starts off playing the game of lying with semantics. Strong words? Yes, but there’s no other way to interpret it. For the record: in #74, Jon Rowe wrote:

Jesus did not abolish one social institution: Not slavery, not tyranical govt.

Drill replied in #86:

You could not be more wrong about moral issues such as slavery, etc. in regards to Christ.

He then goes on to explain how Jesus is a really, really nice guy, and so it’s obvious to all Right Thinking People that he’s against slavery.

Now, when Jon says “Jesus never abolished slavery” and replies “You could not be more wrong about moral issues such as slavery, etc. in regards to Christ”, it’s just a flat out lie to claim that you never asserted that Christ abolished slavery. On top of which, Jon’s point is that in the OT God approved of chattel slavery, and that Jesus never opposed or condemned it in any way, shape or form, and it’s therefore false to claim, as Christians today do, the God of the bible forbids or condemns owning other human being as property. Drill knew that, and yet he completely ignore everything else the Bible says about slavery, both in the OT and the NT, that makes it clear that God in no way categorically disapproves of people owning other human beings. And then proceeds to pretend to “get into Jesus’s head” to “prove” that Jesus hates slavery, even though the entire rest of both the OT and NT make it clear he doesn’t.

In other words, “sure, Jon, slavery was fine in the OT, but that was that old racist homicidal genocidal Jehovah. Of course, a god like that would approve of slavery. But we don’t worship him; we worship Jesus, who’s Good and Loving and Benevolent. Of course, I’m also going to ignore the rest of the NT teachings that make it clear that owning slaves isn’t a sin, because me and Jesus got our own thing going. And what really matters is the spirit of the law, so we can ignore the letter of the law and impute all sorts of things to Jesus when we don’t like what the Bible actually says.

He did not abolish slavery.

No, he most certainly didn’t. Why would he, when he gave slavery his blessing in the OT?

Nor did He abolish bank fraud.

He didn’t? What was that command “Thou shalt steal” all about then? Oh, wait. That wasn’t Jesus. That was the OT god.

Nor pornography, armed assault,

For a couple thousand years, Christians thought that Jesus forbade pornography when he said “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”. And they were all agreed that armed assault was taboo because Jesus told Moses to tell the Israelites “thou shalt not kill”.

jaywalking, lying about your weight or age or cheating on your taxes or not putting the toilet seat down. All of those things have been enthusiastically engaged in in the intervening years, unfortunately very often by people who rightly or wrongly call themselves Christians.

And so has slavery. But there’s one big difference. The Bible encourages slavery, and God blesses it. After he delivers his people from their own slavery in Egypt, he turns around and tells them that they may own other human beings, that they may go to war to acquire slaves, and that they may beat their slaves within in an inch of their lives, and as long as the slave lives a day or two after the beating before dying from it, no harm no foul, because “he’s his property”. Here’s just a few of the many, many verses where God encourages and blesses slavery:

Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the
heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Exodus 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Why completely new and creative sins are even thought up all the time; but had He ‘abolished’ them, (slavery being your current target) they would be non-existent, by definition.

Except that slavery is neither new, nor creative, nor a sin. It’s clearly approved of by God over and over and over in the bible, and nowhere is it condemned.

But all such things ARE antithetical to His life and His teaching and His purpose and His mission, as I DO assert in post 86.

As you can see, the only way Drill’s posts make sense is if he believes that Jesus and the god of the OT are not one and the same being. Because Jehovah approves of buying and selling slaves, even brutally beating them. He nowhere condemns it. And Christians believe in the deity of Christ, and the Trinity, which means that Jesus Christ and Jehovah are one and the same. But Drill, like so many other modern Christians, is embarrassed by and disgusted by the OT god, so they completely ignore him, and treat Jesus as some sort of tabula rasa, with no connection to Jehovah at all (except during controversies over nativity scenes at Christmas.)

Read the Sermon on the Mount, and then tell me exactly how slavery fits into that on any ethical or moral basis.

What would Drill say when a homosexual says to him “read the SOTM and tell me exactly how opposition to gay marriage fits into that on any ethical or moral basis.”

Well, since when did the SOTM become the sum of all Christian teachings? Drill has to do this, and ignore the larger New Testament, with all those nasty verses like “slaves obey your masters” that make it clear that Paul had become enthralled to the evil god of the OT and got him mixed up with the Lilies of the Field/Suffer the Little Children Jesus.

Report comment to moderator

Jon Rowe: Contrary to YOUR own assertation in post 101, I NEVER asserted that Christ ‘abolished’ slavery ‘in the Bible’ in post 86.

First, he starts off playing game of lying with semantics. Strong words? Yes, but there’s no other way to interpret it. For the record: in #74, Jon Rowe wrote:

Jesus did not abolish one social institution: Not slavery, not tyranical govt.

Drill replied in #86:

You could not be more wrong about moral issues such as slavery, etc. in regards to Christ.

He then goes on to explain how Jesus is a really, really nice guy, and so it’s obvious to all Right Thinking People that he’s against slavery.

Now, when Jon says “Jesus never abolished slavery” and replies “You could not be more wrong about moral issues such as slavery, etc. in regards to Christ”, it’s just a flat out lie to claim that you never asserted that Christ abolished slavery. On top of which, Jon’s point is that in the OT God approved of chattel slavery, and that Jesus never opposed or condemned it in any way, shape or form, and it’s therefore false to claim, as Christians today do, the God of the bible forbids or condemns owning other human being as property. Drill knew that, and yet he completely ignore everything else the Bible says about slavery, both in the OT and the NT, that makes it clear that God in no way categorically disapproves of people owning other human beings. And then proceeds to pretend to “get into Jesus’s head” to “prove” that Jesus hates slavery, even though the entire rest of both the OT and NT make it clear he doesn’t.

In other words, “sure, Jon, slavery was fine in the OT, but that was that old racist homicidal genocidal Jehovah. Of course, a god like that would approve of slavery. But we don’t worship him; we worship Jesus, who’s Good and Loving and Benevolent. Of course, I’m also going to ignore the rest of the NT teachings that make it clear that owning slaves isn’t a sin, because me and Jesus got our own thing going. And what really matters is the spirit of the law, so we can ignore the letter of the law and impute all sorts of things to Jesus when we don’t like what the Bible actually says.

He did not abolish slavery.

No, he most certainly didn’t. Why would he, when he gave slavery his blessing in the OT?

Nor did He abolish bank fraud.

He didn’t? What was that command “Thou shalt steal” all about then? Oh, wait. That wasn’t Jesus. That was the OT god.

Nor pornography, armed assault,

For a couple thousand years, Christians thought that Jesus forbade pornography when he said “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”. And they were all agreed that armed assault was taboo because Jesus told Moses to tell the Israelites “thou shalt not kill”.

jaywalking, lying about your weight or age or cheating on your taxes or not putting the toilet seat down. All of those things have been enthusiastically engaged in in the intervening years, unfortunately very often by people who rightly or wrongly call themselves Christians.

And so has slavery. But there’s one big difference. The Bible encourages slavery, and God blesses it. After he delivers his people from their own slavery in Egypt, he turns around and tells them that they may own other human beings, that they may go to war to acquire slaves, and that they may beat their slaves within in an inch of their lives, and as long as the slave lives a day or two after the beating before dying from it, no harm no foul, because “he’s his property”. Here’s just a few of the many, many verses where God encourages and blesses slavery:

Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the
heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Exodus 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Why completely new and creative sins are even thought up all the time; but had He ‘abolished’ them, (slavery being your current target) they would be non-existent, by definition.

Except that slavery is neither new, nor creative, nor a sin. It’s clearly approved of by God over and over and over in the bible, and nowhere is it condemned.

But all such things ARE antithetical to His life and His teaching and His purpose and His mission, as I DO assert in post 86.

As you can see, the only way Drill’s posts make sense is if he believes that Jesus and the god of the OT are not one and the same being. Because Jehovah approves of buying and selling slaves, even brutally beating them. He nowhere condemns it. And Christians believe in the deity of Christ, and the Trinity, which means that Jesus Christ and Jehovah are one and the same. But Drill, like so many other modern Christians, is embarrassed by and disgusted by the OT god, so they completely ignore him, and treat Jesus as some sort of tabula rasa, with no connection to Jehovah at all (except during controversies over nativity scenes at Christmas.)

Read the Sermon on the Mount, and then tell me exactly how slavery fits into that on any ethical or moral basis.

What would Drill say when a homosexual says to him “read the SOTM and tell me exactly how opposition to gay marriage fits into that on any ethical or moral basis.”

Well, since when did the SOTM become the sum of all Christian teachings? Drill has to do this, and ignore the larger New Testament, with all those nasty verses like “slaves obey your masters” that make it clear that Paul had become enthralled to the evil god of the OT and got him mixed up with the Lilies of the Field/Suffer the Little Children Jesus.

Report comment to moderator

Of course most non-Christians will not read the Bible anyway, and they don’t really have a reason to, but in many places in Scripture Christ either
does give a command to not do something,
or something like “love your neighbor” which encompasses a lot.

Report comment to moderator

But all such things ARE antithetical to His life and His teaching and His purpose and His mission, as I DO assert in post 86. Read the Sermon on the Mount, and then tell me exactly how slavery fits into that on any ethical or moral basis.

Report comment to moderator

Actually, if you go to the actual Quaker website (http://www.quaker.org) instead of a secondary site, it says “Quakers: Religious Witnesses for Peace Since 1660″ at the top. That’s where I got the year from.

Report comment to moderator

Contrary to your assertions in post 86, Christ never abolished slavery in the Bible.

Report comment to moderator

However, it is even more interesting how Jon Rowe so carefully avoids the central (and only truly relevant) fact; that slavery is glaringly antithetical and hostile to Christ and violates His teaching and works and mission (see post 86).

Instead, he wants to concentrate on Christians, whether actual Christians or not, who have not correctly lived up to that standard throughout history, and then trash the standard accordingly.

But avoid the discussion about the Christ. At all costs. Because it is there that all arguments and subterfuges and rhetoric fails.

Report comment to moderator