Informational Deep Into Christianity

The burden of proof is on the claimant, especially when the claimant is making outlandish statements without a shred of evidence, let alone extraordinary.

Secondly, whoever they may be, the writings of the biblical authors were a reflection of the times, were slavery and the subjugation of women were the norm, so it's not surprising that they would espouse this way of life. Now someone like you might be ashamed of such scripture, so you try to creatively apply other meanings, dig deep and bend their interpretation like a yoga stretch. With you it's so extreme that you've resorted to inventing a new personalized pseudo-philosophy just to avoid admitting the vile truth of such scripture. This is the ultimate weakness of theists, they get entrenched in their indoctrination out of fear of seeing their entire belief system collapse. It's really not all that bad living without the belief in guardian angels and fairytales.

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

1 Peter 3:5-6
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

1 Timothy 6:1
All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching.

Luke 12:47-48
And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.

You're still not acknowledging let alone going by the universal academic and objective principles I pointed to earlier which are required to be followed against fallacious reasoning such as quote-mining other kinds of errors. Shall we wonder why. Dismissing them by merely claiming they are invalid or pseudo-philosophical etc, invented by myself for xyz reasons, is insufficient, unless you go by the 'burden of proof' maxim you're proclaiming to endorse and demonstrate how they fail the purpose they're proclaimed to be followed for, and/or are not followed and applied by every scholar and student of academia, in principle, as a matter of basic requirement in their respective academic fields that include textual criticism covering all sorts of textual material including the Biblical.

Moreover, Christians usually subscribe to an existing official/mainstream interpretation involving the very verses you keep quoting, among other ones too, you cannot thus reasonably believe yourself to be invalidating/countering a given existing interpretation by simply listing some of the verses that said interpretation already addresses and use. Here too you are failing the burden of proof maxim you proclaim to endorse, among other fallacies (such as quote mining; invalidly quoting or nit picking verses to drive a certain preheld point)
 
Last edited:
  • Advertisement
  • You're still not acknowledging let alone going by the universal academic and objective principles I pointed to earlier which are required to be followed against fallacious reasoning such as quote-mining other kinds of errors. Shall we wonder why. Dismissing them by merely claiming they are invalid or pseudo-philosophical etc, invented by myself for xyz reasons, is insufficient, unless you go by the 'burden of proof' maxim you're proclaiming to endorse and demonstrate how they fail the purpose they're proclaimed to be followed for, and/or are not followed and applied by every scholar and student of academia, in principle, as a matter of basic requirement in their respective academic fields that include textual criticism covering all sorts of textual material including the Biblical.

    Moreover, Christians usually subscribe to an existing official/mainstream interpretation involving the very verses you keep quoting, among other ones too, you cannot thus reasonably believe yourself to be invalidating/countering a given existing interpretation by simply listing some of the verses that said interpretation already addresses and use. Here too you are failing the burden of proof maxim you proclaim to endorse, among other fallacies (such as quote mining; invalidly quoting or nit picking verses to drive a certain preheld point)
    Time to start presenting evidence for dead zombies rising to heaven and walking on water, and why you ignore biblical authors espousing slavery and subjugation of women. Your universal academic and objective principles should be renamed the ignis (or better ignoramus) academic and objective principles.
     

    LVV

    Well-Known Member
    Time to start presenting evidence for dead zombies rising to heaven and walking on water, and why you ignore biblical authors espousing slavery and subjugation of women. Your universal academic and objective principles should be renamed the ignis (or better ignoramus) academic and objective principles.
    HA. Ha ha ignorant billions of people believe in Jesus and his blessed mother
    About the quotations About Peter and Paul and Women
    Paul asked Women to obey men true but he asked men to love Women more than they love themselves and their own body and that men should sacrifice their lives like Jesus did for his church
    So a man should totaly dedicate himself to the welfare of the woman when has a priority over himself
    The greatest proven miracle in Christianity
    How a small Jewish sect of a few dozens persons were able to convert to Christianity the greatest and mightiest empire in World History the Roman Empire.


    Joe you are joe Dalton know
     
    Time to start presenting evidence for dead zombies rising to heaven and walking on water, and why you ignore biblical authors espousing slavery and subjugation of women. Your universal academic and objective principles should be renamed the ignis (or better ignoramus) academic and objective principles.
    Why all that anger. Relax. I thought you would help me awakening and enlightening my friends by revealing to me a demonstration of how the Bible (via the New testament in particular) actually espouses evil such as slavery and the subjugation of women, against their existing established opposing claim. Merely quoting those verses that you constantly quote isn't doing the job, and i'm instead being laughed at for relaying to them such refutations, they say that their already existing opposing interpretation or claim, which I am supposed to be tackling or invalidating in the first place, already does address and involve those verses that you are constantly quoting as a refutation in-themselves and which i'm relaying as-are to them. Regarding the event of the resurrection, they were patient and kind enough to take the time and explain to me that I don't have to believe in the resurrection or miracles in order to investigate (historically, at least) the disciples' belief in the resurrection, and that that's how scholars in principle go about doing their job, by not letting their subjective personal beliefs supersede or impede their investigative/scholarly truth-seeking tasks.
     
    Last edited:
    Why all that anger. Relax. I thought you would help me awakening and enlightening my friends by revealing to me a demonstration of how the Bible (via the New testament in particular) actually espouses evil such as slavery and the subjugation of women, against their existing established opposing claim. Merely quoting those verses that you constantly quote isn't doing the job, and i'm instead being laughed at for relaying to them such refutations, they say that their already existing opposing interpretation or claim, which I am supposed to be tackling or invalidating in the first place, already does address and involve those verses that you are constantly quoting as a refutation in-themselves and which i'm relaying as-are to them. Regarding the event of the resurrection, they were patient and kind enough to take the time and explain to me that I don't have to believe in the resurrection or miracles in order to investigate (historically, at least) the disciples' belief in the resurrection, and that that's how scholars in principle go about doing their job, by not letting their subjective personal beliefs supersede or impede their investigative/scholarly truth-seeking tasks.
    Here's how the bible espouses slavery and the subjugation of women:

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    1 Peter 3:5-6
    For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

    1 Timothy 6:1
    All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching.

    Luke 12:47-48
    And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.
     
    Last edited:
    HA. Ha ha ignorant billions of people believe in Jesus and his blessed motherAbout the quotations About Peter and Paul and Women
    Paul asked Women to obey men true but he asked men to love Women more than they love themselves and their own body and that men should sacrifice their lives like Jesus did for his church
    So a man should totaly dedicate himself to the welfare of the woman when has a priority over himself
    The greatest proven miracle in ChristianityHow a small Jewish sect of a few dozens persons were able to convert to Christianity the greatest and mightiest empire in World History the Roman Empire.
    Joe you are joe Dalton know
    Why didn't he also ask men to obey women?

    I like how you classify Christianity as "the greatest and mightiest empire in World History the Roman Empire". Unlike your other Christian brethren here, at least you're honest. Though the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire preceded Christianity, many of its values and principles were adopted by the Popes and clergy on a 'divine' level.
     

    LVV

    Well-Known Member
    Why didn't he also ask men to obey women?

    I like how you classify Christianity as "the greatest and mightiest empire in World History the Roman Empire". Unlike your other Christian brethren here, at least you're honest. Though the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire preceded Christianity, many of its values and principles were adopted by the Popes and clergy on a 'divine' level.
    Joe dishonest Joe
    He asked men Better than obey women
    He asked men to offer their life to women to die for them
    Joe Dishonest Joe
    True the Roman Empire influenced Christianity but that not the purpose
    The purpose was to show the divine social miracle of Christianity when a small Jewish sect of a few dozen persons converted an Empire of 100 millions persons
    And which Empire the mightiest in History who was the world super power for 8 centuries
    Joe Dishonest Joe
     
    Here's how the bible espouses slavery and the subjugation of women:

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    1 Peter 3:5-6
    For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
    Do you really believe that the above verses were written by some Jewish fisherman (if he really existed) that roamed ancient Judea? Those are fantasies in the mind of some delusional Jewish preacher who believed in another Judean man (if he really existed).

    1 Timothy 6:1
    All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching.
    Many people believe the Timothy letter to be a pseudoepigrapha and even if were authentic, Paul, the composer, never met the Judean man who lived in Galilee (if he actually existed).

    Luke 12:47-48
    And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.
    Matthew 13:42 " They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
     
    Why didn't he also ask men to obey women?
    Because he never met Jesus, the Judean man who roamed ancient Galilee (if he actually existed). Had Paul met Jesus, he may have expressed things differently, but he based his views on the fantasies of those who came after Jesus (if he actually existed) and invented the story. In other words, Paul based his views on the Jesus you believed in when you were a delusional, devout Christian, not the real Jesus (if he actually existed) that Hitchens introduced to you as a cure for your delusions.

    I like how you classify Christianity as "the greatest and mightiest empire in World History the Roman Empire". Unlike your other Christian brethren here, at least you're honest. Though the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire preceded Christianity, many of its values and principles were adopted by the Popes and clergy on a 'divine' level.
    Yes, Christ and his vicars adopted the Imperial thoughts of Rome, so as to spread their vile goals and kill Giordano Bruno at the stake.
     
    I relayed your reply as-is to my friends and still they laughed all the more at me.

    Here's how the bible espouses slavery and the subjugation of women:

    1 Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    1 Peter 3:5-6
    For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement
    They're asking me to tell you to proceed and demonstrate it. How does subjugation of women follow from those verses, and asked me to hand you the entire passage of which they are part: 1 Peter 3

    1 Timothy 6:1
    All slaves should show full respect for their masters so they will not bring shame on the name of God and his teaching.
    They want to know how exactly would the above-quoted verse support the claim that Paul espoused slavery when in other parts Paul equally encouraged masters to treat their slaves as brothers, with kindness and love, and that all be slaves to one another, and that 'there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus', etc, ...? They also dropped us that line: Eradicating or conquering slavery via self-sacrifice, endurance and love rather than via rebelling against, and killing, each other, is not only the opposite of espousing slavery, but actually the only correct and effective way of truly opposing and eradicating it.

    Luke 12:47-48
    And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.
    They told me that this is taken out of a parable. And asked me to ask you if you are even aware of this. And if you are, to ask you; how does using images of slaves in a parable amount to espousing slavery.
     
    Last edited:

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    You’re floundering in the hole you’ve dug yourself:


    Then your own quotation from wikipedia:

    Your position and own quote from wikipedia are contradictory. Christ (the anointed one) is not real. Your "crushing majority..." comment is a result of your indoctrination. Embarrassing isn’t it.
    oh the sadness... are you even capable to making a rational argument? let alone an honest one? :)

    i tell you that even atheist scholars acknowledge the reality of Christ and support it, you tell me that there is no unanimous agreement over the miracles and divinity of Christ? :) bass ktir fazi3 inta. take your time. it will dawn upon you.

    You’ve made a pretty strong argument for blind faith in your last soliloquy. The extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is pure logic. A scientist like Sagan values speculation and skepticism over knee jerk superstition. Miracles have to meet that criteria, otherwise they are just superstitious hocus pocus. Take the stigmata of Padre Pio, a credulous ignorant theist would be inclined to believe its a miracle, while a sane common sense person would understand its a case of self mutilation. Therein lies the difference between superstition and common sense.
    that statement you keep parroting is quite an erroneous claim btw, had you not simply been parroting without a shred of critical thinking you wouldnt be forwarding such nonsense. something as silly as pollen particles being moved around in tiny random steps on the surface of water, was the damning evidence that matter is composed of atoms and molecules. so there you go, an extraordinary claim was revealed by an extremely simple evidence. or maybe because atoms are quite tiny then we can accept tiny evidence? :p ya pure logic inta :lol:

    it is normal though that someone in your situation, no depth, no spirituality, no scientific background would ignorantly resort to such claims, because really, what really do you possess otherwise? :) nothing. so trust me, as far as blindness goes, no one can hold a candle to you in this forum :) all puns intended :p

    i am guessing we will be seeing you again next week, with another iteration of your same old topics.
     
    Last edited:
    Joe dishonest Joe
    He asked men Better than obey women
    He asked men to offer their life to women to die for them
    Joe Dishonest Joe
    True the Roman Empire influenced Christianity but that not the purpose
    The purpose was to show the divine social miracle of Christianity when a small Jewish sect of a few dozen persons converted an Empire of 100 millions persons
    And which Empire the mightiest in History who was the world super power for 8 centuries
    Joe Dishonest Joe
    You are very right to equate Christianity to an empire, as you said the mightiest world super power for 8 centuries. That’s were the term Christendom comes from. I thank you for your candour and speaking your mind. As for women, I would say the bible espousing their subjugation equates Christianity to Islam in that respect.
     
    I relayed your reply as-is to my friends and still they laughed all the more at me.

    They're asking me to tell you to proceed and demonstrate it. How does subjugation of women follow from those verses, and asked me to hand you the entire passage of which they are part: 1 Peter 3
    By all means, enlighten us and explain your own interpretation of these verses. I’ve given you my interpretation, the verses clearly say women are subjects of their husbands and they are to obey.

    Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    1 Peter 3:5-6
    For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

    They want to know how exactly would the above-quoted verse support the claim that Paul espoused slavery when in other parts Paul equally encouraged masters to treat their slaves as brothers, with kindness and love, and that all be slaves to one another, and that 'there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus', etc, ...? They also dropped us that line: Eradicating or conquering slavery via self-sacrifice, endurance and love rather than via rebelling against, and killing, each other, is not only the opposite of espousing slavery, but actually the only correct and effective way of truly opposing and eradicating it.
    You didn’t provide your interpretation of this verse 1 Timothy 6:1, certainly seems consistent with Luke 12. Apart from that, if you find inconsistencies in the books of the bible attributed to Paul, it’s because Paul didn’t write all of them. 1 Timothy is in fact pseudepigraphical… Which begs the question, how can you follow a religion rooted in a holy book full of falsely attributed works? In other words, the authors of the New Testament are liars, and if they lie about one thing… You can figure out the rest for yourself...

    They told me that this is taken out of a parable. And asked me to ask you if you are even aware of this. And if you are, to ask you; how does using images of slaves in a parable amount to espousing slavery.
    And what is the meaning of this parable. Be good and obedient like a slave is to his master, and you will be rewarded. If you are disobedient, you will end up in hell. That is condoning slavery and in total agreement with 1 Timothy 6:1. Try quoting the whole passage here, it gets worse. The opening verses of Luke 12 start with a bunch of threats and warnings to fear the Almighty who can send you to hell for an eternity.
     
    oh the sadness... are you even capable to making a rational argument? let alone an honest one? :)

    i tell you that even atheist scholars acknowledge the reality of Christ and support it, you tell me that there is no unanimous agreement over the miracles and divinity of Christ? :) bass ktir fazi3 inta. take your time. it will dawn upon you.
    You fail to understand the "crushing majority" you speak of don’t recognize your Christ as existing. They simply recognize some man from Judea, of which the biblical Christ, was loosely based on. Ironically, the same source you quoted from says:

    Wikipedia - Historicity of Jesus
    The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[22][23][24] Historicity, by contrast, as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.[25]

    What do you suppose these mythic accounts are? Take away the nativity, miracles, resurrection… and you end up with a mere mortal in Judea who made some noise and was summarily executed. The source you posted has proved quite inconvenient for you as it supports my position.

    that statement you keep parroting is quite an erroneous claim btw, had you not simply been parroting without a shred of critical thinking you wouldnt be forwarding such nonsense. something as silly as pollen particles being moved around in tiny random steps on the surface of water, was the damning evidence that matter is composed of atoms and molecules. so there you go, an extraordinary claim was revealed by an extremely simple evidence. or maybe because atoms are quite tiny then we can accept tiny evidence? :p ya pure logic inta :lol:

    it is normal though that someone in your situation, no depth, no spirituality, no scientific background would ignorantly resort to such claims, because really, what really do you possess otherwise? :) nothing. so trust me, as far as blindness goes, no one can hold a candle to you in this forum :) all puns intended :p

    i am guessing we will be seeing you again next week, with another iteration of your same old topics.
    Are you telling us that a man from ancient Judea manipulated matter to walk on water? Where’s the evidence for this, or could it be just blind faith? Either such an extraordinary event of an ancient man walking on water is blind faith, or you have evidence for it. If you have it, why not share it here. Otherwise, why not be honest and just admit it's blind faith.
     

    LVV

    Well-Known Member
    You are very right to equate Christianity to an empire, as you said the mightiest world super power for 8 centuries. That’s were the term Christendom comes from. I thank you for your candour and speaking your mind. As for women, I would say the bible espousing their subjugation equates Christianity to Islam in that respect.
    Are you serious
    You are evading my questions
    When you are serious and honest we continue
    Dishonest Joe
     

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    You fail to understand the "crushing majority" you speak of don’t recognize your Christ as existing. They simply recognize some man from Judea, of which the biblical Christ, was loosely based on. Ironically, the same source you quoted from says:

    Wikipedia - Historicity of Jesus
    The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[22][23][24] Historicity, by contrast, as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.[25]

    What do you suppose these mythic accounts are? Take away the nativity, miracles, resurrection… and you end up with a mere mortal in Judea who made some noise and was summarily executed. The source you posted has proved quite inconvenient for you as it supports my position.
    no, they do not "simply recognize some man from judea, of which the biblical Christ, was loosely based on". that's how morons understand that text.

    the note simply simply points out that the majority of scholars are able to validate that Jesus as a historical figure existed indeed, without being able to validate or invalidate, or without addressing, the miraculous accounts of his life.

    the historical sources indicate that Christ did indeed exist. it stops there. it neither validates nor invalidates the accounts in the scripture. period.

    Are you telling us that a man from ancient Judea manipulated matter to walk on water? Where’s the evidence for this, or could it be just blind faith? Either such an extraordinary event of an ancient man walking on water is blind faith, or you have evidence for it. If you have it, why not share it here. Otherwise, why not be honest and just admit it's blind faith.
    you need help dude. zero ability to understand what is written.

    i was explaining how the amazing and extraordinary particle and atomic theory was proven with simple pollen jumping erratically on the water's surface in a closed environment, i was telling you how einstein quantified the simple brownian motion to prove that matter is indeed made out of particles, and how the sentence you keep parroting about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence holds absolutely no meaning and no credibility.

    but hey, oh boy, how twisted you have shown your mind is with these conclusions of yours, you have to stop the q-tip when you feel resistance dude. manipulated matter to walk on water 2al :lol:
     
    By all means, enlighten us and explain your own interpretation of these verses. I’ve given you my interpretation, the verses clearly say women are subjects of their husbands and they are to obey.

    Peter 3:1
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

    1 Peter 3:5-6
    For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

    Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.



    You didn’t provide your interpretation of this verse 1 Timothy 6:1, certainly seems consistent with Luke 12. Apart from that, if you find inconsistencies in the books of the bible attributed to Paul, it’s because Paul didn’t write all of them. 1 Timothy is in fact pseudepigraphical… Which begs the question, how can you follow a religion rooted in a holy book full of falsely attributed works? In other words, the authors of the New Testament are liars, and if they lie about one thing… You can figure out the rest for yourself...



    And what is the meaning of this parable. Be good and obedient like a slave is to his master, and you will be rewarded. If you are disobedient, you will end up in hell. That is condoning slavery and in total agreement with 1 Timothy 6:1. Try quoting the whole passage here, it gets worse. The opening verses of Luke 12 start with a bunch of threats and warnings to fear the Almighty who can send you to hell for an eternity.

    I already made it clear that the interpretation in question, which you are supposed to help me tackle and invalidate, is the official mainstream one (mainstream Christianity). The burden of proof thus falls upon you to validate your claims or your counter interpretation, against the existing, mainstream, official one. Merely saying and repeating that the verses you are quoting sufficiently validate your claims or your counter-interpretation or invalidate the existing interpretation, is obviously not enough, to say the least, by any academic or objective standard, especially that the existing interpretation in question does actually involve those very verses you are quoting (or actually quote-mining) and adopting as an invalidation in-themselves. What you therefore need to do is demonstrate against the existing opposing interpretation, how exactly your claim or your counter-interpretation, rather than the existing opposing one, is coherently supported by, or follows from, the texts you are quoting.

    In other words, if what we mean by 'subjugation of women' and 'slavery' is the act or fact of forcing, or bringing by force, someone or something under our domination or control, then you will need to demonstrate that that act or fact follows from the texts you are quoting (or quote-mining), that is, you will need to demonstrate that the texts in question instruct or encourage people to subjugate one another, and/or that the texts do not oppose subjugating one another. However, what I am realizing so far (when doing the very least, in response to what you are quoting and how you are doing it, which is putting back Peter's quote in its passage (1 peter 3), and taking Paul's message whole into consideration which I very summarily hinted at in my previous reply) is that these texts do in fact amount to the opposite of what you are claiming, that is, what follows from the texts you are misquoting (now and before, in this thread or elsewhere, in this regard) is a call to all, men and woman, slaves and masters, jews and non-jews, for a peaceful and deeply rooted (i.e. indirect) opposition to subjugation via love, self-sacrifice, and endurance. If this is indeed what follows, and as I've pointed out to you earlier that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, then you will need to further demonstrate how such opposition amounts to espousing slavery, or amounts to not opposing it, or better still, amounts to not being the best and only (or the necessary and possibly sufficient) method of opposing and eradicating it (this is actually the Christian claim).

    Inconsistencies, too, need to be pointed out and demonstrated. The same person opposing slavery and opposing opposing-it at the same time or in his message or in his ministry, is one example of a true inconsistency, a contradiction, which will need to be demonstrated to be so. Otherwise, the claimed inconsistency might only be apparently so, and in reality a complementarity.

    Using images of slaves in a parable does not, as a matter of literary principle, directly amount to espousing slavery, that's a given. You will have to demonstrate it by validly interpreting the parable. It could even be that said images are being used as an instrument to effectively deliver to a specific audience (which, in our case, is humanity in its totality; then, now and ever, with the assumption about future people having what's required to acknowledge that) what would amount to opposing slavery. For example, if I said in a speech "I will be coming as a thief to a certain place", that is, unexpectedly, can we reasonably conclude from this, that I espouse theft or that I'm thinking of stealing something? or that 'acting unexpectedly or swiftly' espouses theft? How, then, much more absurd would it be to draw this conclusion, when, in this very same speech, I'm indirectly condemning theft, and that sits in harmony with my character, ideology, and track record? Because ironically that's exactly what appears to be the case with the parable you are (mis)quoting.

    Luke [12:35–48] (The passage of the parable), source: scripture ,

    quote:

    Vigilant and Faithful Servants.*

    35 “Gird your loins and light your lamps

    36 and be like servants who await their master’s return from a wedding, ready to open immediately when he comes and knocks.

    37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds vigilant on his arrival. Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself, have them recline at table, and proceed to wait on them.

    38 And should he come in the second or third watch and find them prepared in this way, blessed are those servants.

    39 Be sure of this: if the master of the house had known the hour when the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.

    40 You also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.”

    41 Then Peter said, “Lord, is this parable meant for us or for everyone?”

    42 And the Lord replied, “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute [the] food allowance at the proper time?

    43 Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so.

    44 Truly, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property.

    45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’* and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk,

    46 then that servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful.

    47 That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely;

    48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

    * [12:3548] This collection of sayings relates to Luke’s understanding of the end time and the return of Jesus. Luke emphasizes for his readers the importance of being faithful to the instructions of Jesus in the period before the parousia.

    end-of-quote.

    What you will therefore need to do in this regard, is demonstrate that espousing slavery does follow from this parable (at the very least), that is, that
    a) the parable is not about justice (judgment day) and warnings against the danger and consequence of our actions, and/or
    b) how [justice (judgment day) and warnings against the danger and consequence of our actions] espouses slavery.

    -------------

    I hope you will help me respond to all that without appearing a fool and/or a liar to them
     
    Last edited:

    Lemon

    Well-Known Member
    no, they do not "simply recognize some man from judea, of which the biblical Christ, was loosely based on". that's how morons understand that text.

    the note simply simply points out that the majority of scholars are able to validate that Jesus as a historical figure existed indeed, without being able to validate or invalidate, or without addressing, the miraculous accounts of his life.

    the historical sources indicate that Christ did indeed exist. it stops there. it neither validates nor invalidates the accounts in the scripture. period.
    That's what he said. Just replace "man of judea" with "jesus" and your claims are identical. Sounds like you are just trying to argue for sake of argument and it's not going anywhere.

    you need help dude. zero ability to understand what is written.

    i was explaining how the amazing and extraordinary particle and atomic theory was proven with simple pollen jumping erratically on the water's surface in a closed environment, i was telling you how einstein quantified the simple brownian motion to prove that matter is indeed made out of particles, and how the sentence you keep parroting about extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence holds absolutely no meaning and no credibility.
    Brownian motion is a phenomena that nobody could explain for almost a hundred years, yet easy to reproduce and verify. That's not "simple", but quite extraordinary. If we saw people walking on water every day and could reproduce it with same ease as brownian motion, and only explanation was divine intervention, then you bet that would give credence to the idea that Jesus walked on water as well.
     
    You fail to understand the "crushing majority" you speak of don’t recognize your Christ as existing. They simply recognize some man from Judea, of which the biblical Christ, was loosely based on. Ironically, the same source you quoted from says:

    Wikipedia - Historicity of Jesus
    The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[22][23][24] Historicity, by contrast, as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.[25]

    What do you suppose these mythic accounts are? Take away the nativity, miracles, resurrection… and you end up with a mere mortal in Judea who made some noise and was summarily executed. The source you posted has proved quite inconvenient for you as it supports my position.



    Are you telling us that a man from ancient Judea manipulated matter to walk on water? Where’s the evidence for this, or could it be just blind faith? Either such an extraordinary event of an ancient man walking on water is blind faith, or you have evidence for it. If you have it, why not share it here. Otherwise, why not be honest and just admit it's blind faith.
    That's what he said. Just replace "man of judea" with "jesus" and your claims are identical. Sounds like you are just trying to argue for sake of argument and it's not going anywhere.
    The word myth has a specific scholarly meaning "traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". In the academic sphere, when used by historians, it doesn't carry the popular negative connotation you casual people would want to attribute to it. The historian's task is mainly to gather and establish historical data concerning a certain item or event, the task of interpreting or explanation said data draws upon a wide set of different areas of expertise in addition to the historical; from the philosophical/rational, to the theological, to the archaeological, to the medical, etc ...

    When we say Christ is real we mean Christ indeed as Christ is real, based on historical data. Your task is therefore to ask for and tackle the historical data in support of our claim in order to establish and validly support, via argumentation/interpretation/explanation, your counter claim that Christ as Christ whom we proclaim is not real. You can start with banging your head against this:

    12 Historical Facts (Most Critical Scholars Believe These 12 items)

    1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
    2. He was buried.
    3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
    4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
    5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
    6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
    7. The resurrection was the central message.
    8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
    9. The Church was born and grew.
    10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
    11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
    12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

    source: 12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas
     
    Last edited:
    Brownian motion is a phenomena that nobody could explain for almost a hundred years, yet easy to reproduce and verify. That's not "simple", but quite extraordinary. If we saw people walking on water every day and could reproduce it with same ease as brownian motion, and only explanation was divine intervention, then you bet that would give credence to the idea that Jesus walked on water as well.
    Inherently flawed and very embarrassing this 'potato claim requires potato evidence' is, when held as an axiom of science and parroted up and down as such, let it rest.
     

    Top