Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

Jesus was a fairly large fan of using hyperbole in his examples to emphasize his points.

Additionally, and as a separate point, the Roman culture at the time had certain slaves in management positions. Slavery could happen to literally anyone down on their luck, and it could affect skilled individuals -- and if one were to buy these skilled individuals you could use them to run your household, your business, or your kingdom. It was far from an ideal situation, but a slave with the right skill set could carve out a pretty decent existence despite being property in the legal sense. It wasn't something unheard of at the time for a slave to be entrusted with important jobs -- what was UNHEARD OF was for a slave to be forgiven for fucking that job up on such a level.

[Neonivek]

Jesus was a fairly large fan of using hyperbole in his examples to emphasize his points

Yep.

Atleast his stories havn't aged as badly as King Solomon's.

As for Slaves it always depended on how well they were treated. There were periods of time in Roman history (and Greek history) where slaves could expect fair treatment and times where Slaves could expect murderous treatment.

"what was UNHEARD OF was for a slave to be forgiven for fucking that job up on such a level."

There was one emporer who fought for fair rights for slaves. One of his major tenants was how harsh the punishment towards slaves were.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My understanding is that in mainstream Roman society mistreating your slaves wasn't looked upon very well. Not only was it extremely impractical to mistreat slaves since a disabled or dead slave is a nonproductive slave, but the Romans didn't see them as not being people or anything. It was still pretty distasteful to harm them even if they were slaves. You need look no further than the story of Vedius Pollio, who managed to greatly offend Emperor Augustus due to his propensity for throwing his slaves into a pool of starved lampreys for the most minor of offenses.

[ggamer]

While this is all well and good (I am well aware of republicans severely misrepresenting bible verses to support Romney), this likely won't affect Romney at all, seeing as how he is mormon. I'm not entirely sure that most mormons support Romney, but it can be assumed.

Before anyone try to claim that Mormonism is a christian denomination (Which has happened before), Mormonism diversifies itself by defying the words of revelation.

Spoiler:  which are (click to show/hide)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

See verse 18. Of which Mormons do alot.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You do know that all the books of the Bible were originally separate entities (excepting the books also present in the Torah), right? Hence, Revelations could only be talking about itself there.

Plus, the Mormons technically didn't add to the Bible, the Book of Mormon is a separate book that is not put "inside" the Bible.

And as they believe in Christ, they are Christians whether you like it or not, as we discussed last time. Hell, even if we accepted your premise Revelations doesn't say adding doesn't make you a Christian, it says Yahweh will curse you with the plagues of Revelation, which so far the Mormons have not been.

It helps that most of the plagues of Revelation are effectively world-ending events that would be very noticeable by everyone.

Edit: Council of Nicea not responsible for assemble of Bible, brb doing historical research.

[Blargityblarg]

Before anyone try to claim that Mormonism is a christian denomination (Which has happened before), Mormonism diversifies itself by defying the words of revelation.

The criterion for Christianity is not 'follows every part of the Bible', as that would mean Christians are heavily outnumbered by simultaneous-bear-mauling-and-lightning-strike victims. The fairest criterion is instead 'claims to be Christian'. Mormonism fits this criterion.

That said, Mormonism, unless I'm very much mistaken, also follows the Bible in addition to the Book of Mormon or whichever it is. It could turn a couple heads, though I am sceptical about the direction this project is leaning; as said before, getting people to vote is more important than getting people to vote Blue.

E:ninja

[Bohandas]

While this is all well and good (I am well aware of republicans severely misrepresenting bible verses to support Romney), this likely won't affect Romney at all, seeing as how he is mormon. I'm not entirely sure that most mormons support Romney, but it can be assumed.

Before anyone try to claim that Mormonism is a christian denomination (Which has happened before), Mormonism diversifies itself by defying the words of revelation.

Spoiler:  which are (click to show/hide)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

See verse 18. Of which Mormons do alot.

I believe that their official explanation is that The Book of Mormon was actually written first but lost until the Golden Tablets it was originally recorded on were rediscovered by Joseph Smith under the guidance of the angel Gabriel (or something to that general effect)

[ggamer]

@ MSH & Blargh

That's interesting, I never actually knew that about mormonism. It doesn't help that the faith in and of itself is confusing (At least to me).

Anyway, that was just my two-cents. I don't actually mind the tracts, even if I don't exactly agree with the intentions. I'm looking at it from more of a "remove the log from your eye before you try to remove the splinter from another man's" perspective here, In that republicans and democrats both have harsh criticism for each other when their own parties are rather inconsistent.

On a seperate note, not all christians are republican, nor should you color your opinion that way. True, many christians swing to the right, but the bible says nothing about political affiliation, and as Owlbread said, there are christians of many diverse political parties.

[Willfor]

On a seperate note, not all christians are republican, nor should you color your opinion that way. True, many christians swing to the right, but the bible says nothing about political affiliation, and as Owlbread said, there are christians of many diverse political parties.

It's not really what's being said here. There is a very large overlap between republicans and Christians, especially in the southern US, and there is quite a habit among that population to produce politically-motivated tracts. This is simply the balancing of the scales by creating ones of the opposite political spectrum.

Edit: Council of Nicea not responsible for assemble of Bible, brb doing historical research.

That's a very deep well. Be careful.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Edit: Council of Nicea not responsible for assemble of Bible, brb doing historical research.

That's a very deep well. Be careful.

Indeed. There is very little history on this subject, I'm afraid. The Synod of Carthage determined the first canon in 398, but by then the Bible was being copied as one document. I can't find much of anything on that, I'm starting to think we might not actually know.

[Gamerlord]

ptw

[pisskop]

By bashing an enemy himself you prove nothing; except how shortsighted you are.  Being too rich or too shagadellic doesnt make you a bad president.  Neither does doing cocaine and getting a dui.

Attack his policies.  Your attack of his character is just a cheap parlor trick.  And so is using vague bible quotations from your local religions version of the bible.  *How many versions of the bible are there?*  Take the higher path instrad of falling into the mud.

[Willfor]

By bashing an enemy himself you prove nothing; except how shortsighted you are.  Being too rich or too shagadellic doesnt make you a bad president.  Neither does doing cocaine and getting a dui.

Attack his policies.  Your attack of his character is just a cheap parlor trick.  And so is using vague bible quotations from your local religions version of the bible.  *How many versions of the bible are there?*  Take the higher path instrad of falling into the mud.

This has far more to do with political association than it has to do with any one man. This isn't really about Romney at all, and if you think it is you have missed the point of this entirely. This is about showing people that what they say and what they do has a fundamental disconnect. I don't really see this as a low road in any way, shape, or form.

Ironically, the tract Bohandas wrote is approaching people in the same way you have approached this thread. "[Look at this example] [Now take the higher road]". I quite enjoy that.

[Leafsnail]

It's not really what's being said here. There is a very large overlap between republicans and Christians, especially in the southern US, and there is quite a habit among that population to produce politically-motivated tracts. This is simply the balancing of the scales by creating ones of the opposite political spectrum.

I don't see why this is meant to be a good thing.  If Republicans are producing a lot of unfair and untrue attack ads on Obama the answer isn't to "balance the scales" by doing the same to Romney.  If Republicans are selectively quoting the Bible to forward their political agenda then the correct response would be to criticize that rather than doing the exact same thing for your own political beliefs.

I mean I guess you could do it as a means of criticism, but that's not the impression I'm getting here.

[Willfor]

I have other things to do, I don't really want to write a massive post on this issue. Especially since I am merely helping as an enabler. I am not even in the US, it's not my fight to fight. This is my motivation here:

Tracts are simply internet posts from another era. It's the tossing of ideas out to people in paper form instead of in digital form. These ideas can reach people. I would, personally, like to see the people who would be most effected by these tracts to be confronted with the ideas presented in the tracts. It may not change many minds at all. It may not change any. I do believe that it's the right way to present a particular challenging idea, however.

That's my stake in this, take it or leave it.