Who's Calling, Please?

No, even that is voluntary, and it was not always for life.
But you could make them slaves for slave - that's the point.
Yes, but only if they wanted to be. This was the ancient version of welfare. No other nations had this at the time. So it shows Gods laws were far ahead of their time.
Roman masters could kill their slaves for no reason and never be punished.
Ex. 21:20-21 says that a Hebrew master could beat their slaves and, as long as the slave "gets back up after one or two days", go unpunished.
Not if he caused any permanent damage. Read verses 26-27. This could even include a permanent scar. So the slave would go free if the master broke the skin of the slave bad enough to cause a permanent scar.
 
Yes, but only if they wanted to be.
That only applied to Hebrew slaves, who had to be set free every jubilee.
Not if he caused any permanent damage. Read verses 26-27. This could even include a permanent scar. So the slave would go free if the master broke the skin of the slave bad enough to cause a permanent scar.
You are defending a book/god that allowed people to be owned and beaten. Have you no shame?
 
That’s like claiming Greek Mythology portrays real events because they portray human truths. I understand how what you outline makes sense from a metaphorical sense, but a lot of metaphors can be crafted around reverse-engineered empirical experiences.

I don’t view Gnosticism as ancient mystical forgotten knowledge. It is simply one culture’s collection of metaphorical thinking attempting to put a supernatural framework around what they are experiencing.
You know that I do not believe in the supernatural. I believe our universe follows natural laws and that it existed in a different form, with different physical laws, before the Big Bang. And I suspect that many religions from various cultures were positing what that form took, for example, light or energy in perfect order containing intelligence. It does not have to be supernatural, just a universe before our own.

If there was intelligence in the world before the Big Bang then new terms were needed to represent them, for example, angels, gods, demons, etc. Presumably, whatever intelligence existed before the Big Bang influenced the world we currently live in. That is the essence of the original idea. The problem is that when these ideas or theories were written down as mythical stories to explain the cause of good and bad in our universe, the simple people take them as literal stories rather than theoretical truths about cosmogenesis, consciousness, good and bad, etc.

Therefore, when Paul refers to the “angels” with power over the elements of matter, it is in the context of cosmogenesis, specifically, whatever intelligences existed before the Big Bang being the cause(s) of matter/flesh/body and moral consciousness in our universe. (In science they would be called the random or unknown causes in our universe leading to the development of us). Double check me, but I cannot recall a single epistle of Paul proposing a supernatural event in this universe (you know my position on the alleged resurrection of a decomposing Jesus). BUT he does perceive an intelligence before this material world, call it angels, gods, or spirit, being the ultimate cause of natural events in this one. For instance, he attributes a rising moral consciousness in us to be the “Jesus” or “Spirit” who existed before the foundation of our world. Do you see my point?

It is christian orthodoxy which has promoted the exoteric form of religion, whereas, the gnostic christians were promoting the esoteric form of religion, the one attributing events in this universe to intelligence(s) preceding our universe. Which is why they focused so much on cosmogenesis in their texts, as did Paul. Whereas, christian orthodoxy could care less about what came before our current cosmos. It is why they can so easily reject evolution because they only believe the exoteric form of religion, the nature breaking magic, the supernatural. Without that, they have nothing. An empty faith. A faith built on myths and superstitions alone.
 
Last edited:
You know that I do not believe in the supernatural. I believe our universe follows natural laws and that it existed in a different form, with different physical laws, before the Big Bang. And I suspect that many religions from various cultures were positing what that form took, for example, light or energy in perfect order containing intelligence. It does not have to be supernatural, just a universe before our own.

If there was intelligence in the world before the Big Bang then new terms were needed to represent them, for example, angels, gods, demons, etc. Presumably, whatever intelligence existed before the Big Bang influenced the world we currently live in. That is the essence of the original idea. The problem is that when these ideas or theories were written down as mythical stories to explain the cause of good and bad in our universe, the simple people take them as literal stories rather than theoretical truths about cosmogenesis, consciousness, good and bad, etc.

Therefore, when Paul refers to the “angels” with power over the elements of matter, it is in the context of cosmogenesis, specifically, whatever intelligences existed before the Big Bang being the cause(s) of matter/flesh/body and moral consciousness in our universe. (In science they would be called the random or unknown causes in our universe leading to the development of us). Double check me, but I cannot recall a single epistle of Paul proposing a supernatural event in this universe (you know my position on the alleged resurrection of a decomposing Jesus). BUT he does perceive an intelligence before this material world, call it angels, gods, or spirit, being the ultimate cause of natural events in this one. For instance, he attributes a rising moral consciousness in us to be the “Jesus” or “Spirit” who existed before the foundation of our world. Do you see my point?

It is christian orthodoxy which has promoted the exoteric form of religion, whereas, the gnostic christians were promoting the esoteric form of religion, the one attributing events in this universe to intelligence(s) preceding our universe. Which is why they focused so much on cosmogenesis in their texts, as did Paul. Whereas, christian orthodoxy could care less about what came before our current cosmos. It is why they can so easily reject evolution because they only believe the exoteric form of religion, the nature breaking magic, the supernatural. Without that, they have nothing. An empty faith. A faith built on myths and superstitions alone.
Believing in a disembodied sentient will that resembles ours - even if supersized - is supernatural. You cannot point to any example of a willful mind without the biological brain we possess. Gnosticism anthropomorphizes what we are into a cosmic metaphor where the materials do not exist in the forms necessary for such will. It’s just a different form of Greek or Roman Mythology except with less human forms for the powers it attempts to rationalize.
 
Believing in a disembodied sentient will that resembles ours - even if supersized - is supernatural.
Not necessarily. It is irrelevant with regards to events in this universe whether the sentient divine will is supernatural or not especially if there is no difference in outcome for example, the natural development of the cosmos and humans. IOW, What you accuse me of imagining as a supernatural will is NO different than the scientific cause of causes because the outcome is the exact same. You might as well accuse scientists of imagining a cause to our universe.

I conceded that IN this universe there are NO supernatural events, nevertheless, everything happens for a reason whether I call it a divine intelligence or science calls it the cause of our universe which produced us.

You cannot point to any example of a willful mind without the biological brain we possess.
sure I can, the divine mind willed or caused us to exist through the universe he made. You cannot see the nose on your face even though it is obvious. Also, why are you hung up on our minds being used to perceive God as if that is a flaw in belief? You might as well admit atheism is false because it is only perceived in your brain. For everything is perceived in our brain! Where else would anything be perceived by us? Consciousness is the highest form of existence whether it be divine or human.

Gnosticism anthropomorphizes what we are into a cosmic metaphor where the materials do not exist in the forms necessary for such will. It’s just a different form of Greek or Roman Mythology except with less human forms for the powers it attempts to rationalize.
More 5wize generalizations lacking any substance.
 
Last edited:
You cannot point to any example of a willful mind without the biological brain we possess.

True. But then again no mind with or without a brain can be pointed to. Whatever can be pointed to must exist materially. Brains can be pointed to. Minds cannot. You are merely claiming that since YOU know of no mind that exists without a brain, therefore none can.
 
True. But then again no mind with or without a brain can be pointed to. Whatever can be pointed to must exist materially. Brains can be pointed to. Minds cannot. You are merely claiming that since YOU know of no mind that exists without a brain, therefore none can.
But there are so many other concepts like that that do not question the obvious anchoring to the physical such as sweet and sour, hot and cold, light and dark, imagination and sensibility. We don’t imagine them existing without their sources. Mind however, to the religious, does not follow the pattern, but for no reason that I can discern.
 
But there are so many other concepts like that that do not question the obvious anchoring to the physical such as sweet and sour, hot and cold, light and dark, imagination and sensibility. We don’t imagine them existing without their sources.

Oh, I strongly disagree with that. I don't see any of the adjectives you itemized as anchored to the physical. A man without a tongue and olfactory sense can experience the sweetness of Alison Krauss' voice and the sourness of a Christopher Hitchens essay. A blind man can experience the darkness in a Poe short story. Sweetness, sourness and darkness would exist if no one lived to experience them. Tree falling in the woods-ism.

The brain is merely the conveyor of thoughts which emanate from a disembodied mind. The mind is not "anchored" to the brain any more than Lincoln's thoughts on the Civil War were anchored in the Gettysburg Address. He would have had them even if he had been assassinated on the train to Pennsylvania.
 
Oh, I strongly disagree with that. I don't see any of the adjectives you itemized as anchored to the physical. A man without a tongue and olfactory sense can experience the sweetness of Alison Krauss' voice and the sourness of a Christopher Hitchens essay. A blind man can experience the darkness in a Poe short story. Sweetness, sourness and darkness would exist if no one lived to experience them. Tree falling in the woods-ism.

The brain is merely the conveyor of thoughts which emanate from a disembodied mind. The mind is not "anchored" to the brain any more than Lincoln's thoughts on the Civil War were anchored in the Gettysburg Address. He would have had them even if he had been assassinated on the train to Pennsylvania.
You have successfully substituted the sensations, shifted the boxes and contents, but you still failed to detach them.
 
You have successfully substituted the sensations, shifted the boxes and contents, but you still failed to detach them.

You had already detached them. Your disembodied confusion would exist even if you could not "point to" an "anchor" in a physical CARM post.
 
You had already detached them. Your disembodied confusion would exist even if you could not "point to" an "anchor" in a physical CARM post.
Sorry... I’m just not tracking this. I don’t see how paper (Gettysburg Address) equates to biological mind as opposed to just an inanimate medium where its thoughts and experiences of a biologically bound mind are recorded.
 
Last edited:
Sorry... I’m just not tracking this. I don’t see how paper (Gettysburg Address) equates to biological mind .........

There's your screw-up right there. The mind is not biological. Its conveyance mechanism, the brain, however, is biological.

............as opposed to just an inanimate medium where its thoughts and experiences of a biologically bound mind are recorded.

The paper (the Gettysburg Address) does not EQUATE to the mind at all. It doesn't even analogize it. It analogizes the brain, not the mind. The former is a physical object. The latter is not. The Gettysburg Address conveys the disembodied mind of Lincoln, something no one can "point to," to use your verb.
 
No, even that is voluntary, and it was not always for life. Read Exodus 21:5-6. And if the slave lived until the Year of Jubilee for gentiles (every 50 years), then they were freed. And they were not property the way animals were or like in Roman slavery. You would receive the death penalty even if you murdered a slave. Roman masters could kill their slaves for no reason and never be punished.
Oh, come on! Please do not insult my intelligence. It explicitly states this is for Hebrew slaves just two verses before.

Exodus 21:1 “These are the laws you are to set before them:
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.


There were very clearly two sets of rules, one for Hebrews, one for gentiles. Hebrews were to be treated well, gentiles got no such protection. Yes, I will note that killing a gentile slaves was not allowed, but beating him so hard he only just survived was allowed.
No, see my post 210 where I demonstrate that gentiles and hebrews are to be treated the same. Except hebrew slaves were freed every 7 years and gentile slaves were only freed every 70 years, ie the Year of Jubilee. These verses are just the standard case. Just like our law books of today, they used case law, instead of describing every possible scenario.
Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Gentile slaves were considered property, and were slaves for life. This was chattel slavery. This was absolutely morally wrong. We can excuse the Hebrews; they were doing the same as every other culture at that time and for a long time later. But we cannot excuse a God who chose to explicitly allow it.
See verses 26-27. If the master does any permanent damage to the slave he is freed. So even just a permanent scar could produce freedom for the slave. Combined with it being voluntary, this was totally unlike any form of chattel slavery at the time and far less harsh than American slavery. During ancient times when there was no welfare, this was a life saver for the poor and during economic collapse. If properly practiced it could save thousands of lives during an economic crisis. And it was not for life if the slave lived near the time of the Year of Jubilee when all slaves were freed including gentiles.
 
No, see my post 210 where I demonstrate that gentiles and hebrews are to be treated the same.
And yet Lev 25 explicitly says it is only Hebrew slaves are not to be treated harshly. Hmm, seems there is a contradiction in the Bible.

An alternative interpretation of Lev 19:33 would be that it is talking about Israelites who are strangers. It certainly does not say "gentile".

Except hebrew slaves were freed every 7 years and gentile slaves were only freed every 70 years, ie the Year of Jubilee. These verses are just the standard case. Just like our law books of today, they used case law, instead of describing every possible scenario.
And yet Lev 25 says gentile slaves can be kept for life. Hmm, another contradiction.

See verses 26-27. If the master does any permanent damage to the slave he is freed. So even just a permanent scar could produce freedom for the slave.
You are taking that out of context. The start of the chapter makes clear this applies to Hebrew slaves only.

21:1 “These are the laws you are to set before them:
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

Combined with it being voluntary, this was totally unlike any form of chattel slavery at the time and far less harsh than American slavery.
Voluntary for Hebrew slaves. Slavery for Hebrew slaves was totally unlike any form of chattel slavery at the time and far less harsh than American slavery. For gentile slaves, not so much.

During ancient times when there was no welfare, this was a life saver for the poor and during economic collapse. If properly practiced it could save thousands of lives during an economic crisis. And it was not for life if the slave lived near the time of the Year of Jubilee when all slaves were freed including gentiles.
So we both recognise that God could have instituted welfare. Instead, he chose to advocate chattel slavery for gentiles.
 
See verses 26-27. If the master does any permanent damage to the slave he is freed. So even just a permanent scar could produce freedom for the slave. Combined with it being voluntary,
Wasn't specified to be voluntary for gentiles or prisoners of war.
During ancient times when there was no welfare, this was a life saver for the poor and during economic collapse.
Then why didn't Yahweh institute a welfare system instead of allowing people to be owned for life as property, and beaten?
We did it, after all.
 
You are not the creator, king, and judge of the universe. Sin is rebellion against that Being. So it is the most serious thing humans can ever do. And therefore requires physical and spiritual death. Even God can not change that requirement.
Then where did it come from?
As the creator of everything, he must have written it into the code of the universe.

Which means that he could have not written it in.
It is the law of justice intrinsic to reality and His character. He cannot go against His character. Similar to the laws of logic which are also intrinsic to reality which even God can not go against because logic is also intrinsic to His being.
 
It is the law of justice intrinsic to reality and His character. He cannot go against His character. Similar to the laws of logic which are also intrinsic to reality which even God can not go against because logic is also intrinsic to His being.
And yet Christianity is founded on the principle that God will let some people off scot-free.

How is that justice?
 
Yes, but only if they wanted to be.
That only applied to Hebrew slaves, who had to be set free every jubilee.
No, read post 210. And non jews were freed in the year of jubilee every 70 years.
Not if he caused any permanent damage. Read verses 26-27. This could even include a permanent scar. So the slave would go free if the master broke the skin of the slave bad enough to cause a permanent scar.
You are defending a book/god that allowed people to be owned and beaten. Have you no shame?
It depends on what they were beaten for. If they were beaten for abusing a young girl that was pretty good ancient justice maybe better than today. We dont know what exactly some were beaten for. And if they were treated unjustly they could escape to sanctuary cities and not be extradited.
 
No, read post 210. And non jews were freed in the year of jubilee every 70 years.
And yet Lev 25 explicitly says they can be kept for life. Clearly the Bible contradicts itself.

It depends on what they were beaten for. If they were beaten for abusing a young girl that was pretty good ancient justice maybe better than today. We dont know what exactly some were beaten for. And if they were treated unjustly they could escape to sanctuary cities and not be extradited.
The text suggests they can be beaten for no reason at all. There is no suggestion slaves are only to be beaten if cases of child abuse - or indeed that free men should be beaten if they abuse a child as far as I am aware.
 
Back
Top