The Bible - In Legos!

[Jason McCullough]

This (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/) is the greatest version so far of the Word.

My favorite is Paul's instructions for slaves. (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_slaves/1tm06_01.html)

[Case]

This (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/) is the greatest version so far of the Word.

My favorite is Paul's instructions for slaves. (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_slaves/1tm06_01.html)

Man, that's the weirdest thing I've seen in a very long time. Is this a serious site, or something like Landover Baptist?

:shock:

[TimElhajj]

It says the site and pictures were created by one Rev Smith. If you go to Rev Smith's web site (http://www.thereverend.com/), you find this posted on the front page:


What strikes one most about the Rev. Smith upon meeting him for the first time is that his penis is invariably hanging right out in the open through the pee-hole of his pants. I'm kidding of
course. I've known Brendan for sixteen years, and not once have I known him to wear pants."

Chelsea Clinton, 3\4\03

[Anders Hallin]

A great reminder to all that Paul is really quite the fucktard.

[Acoustic Rob]

Well, the site's "serious" in the sense that there's really a guy named Brendan Smith who puts these things together. And he does really amazing work, too, both in the model-building and in the photography. (It's not easy to photograph LEGO--you need a good camera because you have to get in close, and the stuff's reflective enough that lighting it can be a problem.)

He's not actually a minister, though. And he seems to cherry-pick for embarrasing passages to portray. But you have to admire his skill.

[Tyjenks]

This (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/) is the greatest version so far of the Word.

My favorite is Paul's instructions for slaves. (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_slaves/1tm06_01.html)

Man, that's the weirdest thing I've seen in a very long time. Is this a serious site, or something like Landover Baptist?

:shock:

Landover is not serious? :shock: :wink:

[marxeil]

As I recall, the concept of slavery in Israel at that time was differnt from the known 'Conquer and send all to slavery' we all know.
A man (or woman) would become a slave for reasons such as owing money and not being able to repay, commiting crimes and so forth.
A slave would be released after a fixed period of time.

[Case]

As I recall, the concept of slavery in Israel at that time was differnt from the known 'Conquer and send all to slavery' we all know.
A man (or woman) would become a slave for reasons such as owing money and not being able to repay, commiting crimes and so forth.
A slave would be released after a fixed period of time.

So intentured servitude is good because...

Oh, right, it's never good.

Sheesh.

:roll:

[voltaic]

It isn't a totally unreasonable way to get out of debt. If person A owes person B tons of money and can't pay it, person A voluntarily enters a period of indentured servitude for person B to repay the debt. Its not even remotely as repugnant as slaver ships from Africa.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, but you can use the exact same argument to sell yourself into slavery. After all, you're just trading your expected future earnings for a single lump-sum payment!

[Chris Nahr]

Huh? Selling yourself into slavery would be kind of pointless since, as a slave, you don't own property...

[voltaic]

Yeah, but you can use the exact same argument to sell yourself into slavery. After all, you're just trading your expected future earnings for a single lump-sum payment!
Exactly. If a person deems this is their best path to better financial footing, who are we to say otherwise? People should be able to run their own lives.


Huh? Selling yourself into slavery would be kind of pointless since, as a slave, you don't own property...
Think of it as selling your services/time/effort into slavery.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Huh? Selling yourself into slavery would be kind of pointless since, as a slave, you don't own property...

It occasionally in the ancient world, specifically in the period just after Roman expansion to the east. Many educated or semi-educated Greeks would sell themselves to Roman society giants as tutors or stewards or what-have-you. And manumission in Rome meant instant citizenship - manumission was very common in urban Rome.

Of course, this wasn't necessarily smart, and if you picked a poor master you could be in trouble.

Urban slaves had a much better time of it than the poor war prisoners toiling in the fields and mines. Those guys were hardly ever freed and usually worked until they were dead or too old to work.

Troy

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, but you can use the exact same argument to sell yourself into slavery. After all, you're just trading your expected future earnings for a single lump-sum payment!
Exactly. If a person deems this is their best path to better financial footing, who are we to say otherwise? People should be able to run their own lives.

Dude, I like the results of free market capitalism, but forgoing your freedom in perpetuity for a pile of cash is a bit excessive, and just rampant for abuse.

[Mike Cathcart]

This (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/) is the greatest version so far of the Word.

Yeah, it's a lot better than a site I tried to start up a year ago, The Bible...in Legolas!


http://www.penguinhed.org/images/legolasbible.jpg

[ydejin]

Yeah, it's a lot better than a site I tried to start up a year ago, The Bible...in Legolas!

Hmmm. I've got some female friends who might like that one a lot!

[voltaic]

Dude, I like the results of free market capitalism, but forgoing your freedom in perpetuity for a pile of cash is a bit excessive, and just rampant for abuse.
It wasn't in perpetuity. I'm shaking my head now. How can you discuss anything when you hardly even know the first thing about it? <sigh>

[Jason McCullough]

So there's a dividing line where its ok to give up your freedom, but not when its just a little bit longer? Where is it? 40 years? 20?

[marxeil]

So intentured servitude is good because...

Oh, right, it's never good.

Sheesh.


I don't recall saying it was either good or bad, I was just saying that while Paul's instructions were meaningless when applied to slavery as we are used to, It is not so when apllied to the kind of slavery I described.

As for being good or bad, this is not a black and white issue. Suppose a pursen would be cought stealing and faced a trial. a suitable punishment might be to lock him up in a small room for several years, after which he would be released. Is this more humane then making him work for several years and then release him?

Also, Slavery rules were very strict regarding the treatment of a slave. If the slave's master would hurt the slave, the slave would be released. The master was required to provision the slave with the same conditions he himself had - food, accomodation etc'.

[Anders Hallin]

Dude, I like the results of free market capitalism, but forgoing your freedom in perpetuity for a pile of cash is a bit excessive, and just rampant for abuse.
Well, at least it's honest :)

[voltaic]

So there's a dividing line where its ok to give up your freedom, but not when its just a little bit longer? Where is it? 40 years? 20?
No, there's a dividing line between doing whatever the hell you want with your own person and someone else telling you what you can or can't do to your own person. Joe should be able to do whatever the hell Joe wants with Joe's body, including indentured servitude, if Joe so chooses. The length of time is irrelevant.

AND there's a dividing line between doing even the slightest bit of research on a topic before delving in with all the answers and not doing anything.

So there's two pairs of things, each pair with its own dividing line. One concerns the topic of voluntary, personal indentured servitude and one concerns a person's approach to discussion of any topic in general.

[Chris Nahr]

Think of it as selling your services/time/effort into slavery.

Okay, but you'd need legal guarantees that your servitude will end at a fixed date and that your owner won't simply rob or kill you. If that is the case then I can see why someone would try to earn money this way.


It occasionally in the ancient world, specifically in the period just after Roman expansion to the east. Many educated or semi-educated Greeks would sell themselves to Roman society giants as tutors or stewards or what-have-you. And manumission in Rome meant instant citizenship - manumission was very common in urban Rome.

Interesting. I'm aware that household slaves were generally treated well in ancient Rome, and often were freed as a reward for good service, but I didn't know that Greeks would actually sell themselves into slavery, rather than trying to get regular employment in such a position.

[Jason McCullough]

Volt, people aren't robots. If people were perfectly rational beings, maybe, but on planet earth you're just asking for it.


As to "the laws against abusing slaves were strongly enforced" - pull the other one, it has bells on. Companies abuse the employee/employer relationship quite badly, and that has nowhere near the power imbalance.

Oh, here's an interesting Krugman article (http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/serfdom.html). The history behind the imposition of serfdom he refers to is further detailed here (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001447.html) on Delong's site.

[voltaic]

Volt, people aren't robots. If people were perfectly rational beings, maybe, but on planet earth you're just asking for it.
Well I agree with that Jason. I mean if we always get to this point in our discussions, though, then there is no point. People suck. But all of us still talk about what we think would be a great system given any particular topic.

[Brad Grenz]

Volt, people aren't robots. If people were perfectly rational beings, maybe, but on planet earth you're just asking for it.

Now go on some crazy socialist rant so I can throw this quote in your face!

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not a socialist, but there's not too many socialist arguments that assume people are perfectly rational.....

[Brad Grenz]

But socialism does assumes people will function like dispassionate robots in the social system.

[Mike Cathcart]

I'm not a socialist, but there's not too many socialist arguments that assume people are perfectly rational.....

Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, but at least it's an ethos.

[Anders Hallin]

No matter what one thinks of socialism, it seems to me a more civilized system than most.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

But socialism does assumes people will function like dispassionate robots in the social system.

What kind of socialism are you thinking of, here?

[voltaic]

No matter what one thinks of socialism, it seems to me a more civilized system than most.
Define "civilized".

[Anders Hallin]

No matter what one thinks of socialism, it seems to me a more civilized system than most.
Define "civilized".
It is a created system, rejecting the "natural" in the purpose of improving the human condition. As such, I deem it to be more civilized. Though that doesn't change some other facts about that ideology.

[voltaic]

No matter what one thinks of socialism, it seems to me a more civilized system than most.
Define "civilized".
It is a created system, rejecting the "natural" in the purpose of improving the human condition. As such, I deem it to be more civilized. Though that doesn't change some other facts about that ideology.
So socialism is better at rejecting "the natural" to improve the human condition? By that definition, illegal genetic modification is civilized. It rejects the natural to improve the human condition. I mean if some guy is out there killing people on his island (where his evil headquarters are located) through genetic experiments to annihilate cancer for example, then he is civilized. How about a poet who rejects society by going out and living in the woods without technology but does so to improve the human condition through discovery? Is he uncivilized?

[Anders Hallin]

So socialism is better at rejecting "the natural" to improve the human condition? By that definition, illegal genetic modification is civilized. It rejects the natural to improve the human condition. I mean if some guy is out there killing people on his island (where his evil headquarters are located) through genetic experiments to annihilate cancer for example, then he is civilized. How about a poet who rejects society by going out and living in the woods without technology but does so to improve the human condition through discovery? Is he uncivilized?
Well, yes. Except the evil arch-villain, because that's a complicated situation.
But the only point I'm making is that socialism is an attempt to consciously engineer the best of possible systems. Which differentiates it from capitalism, since that is, while certainly engineered, unconsciously done so.
The idea of which is quite fascinating.

[Machfive]

But the only point I'm making is that socialism is an attempt to consciously engineer the best of possible systems.

So's eugenics.

/me unsheathes the ten-foot-pole and proceeds to not touch that