Whats so offensive about Christianity

[abaris]

This is the worst aspect of Christianity -- that it perverts the morals of good people on the basis of a Bronze Age society being held as the ideal.

They also support torture, as a recent poll shows.

Sixty nine percent of white evangelicals believe the CIA treatment was justified, compared to just 20% who said it was not. (Those numbers, incidentally, roughly mirror the breakdown of Republican versus Democratic voters among white evangelicals.) A full three-quarters (75%) of white non-evangelical Protestants outnumber the 22% of their brethren in saying CIA treatment was justified. White Catholics believe the treatment was justified by a 66-23% margin.

http://religiondispatches.org/christians...americans/

[ManMachine]

Everyone knows (even if it's not widely discussed) that people who occupy positions of authority necessarily have to have a psychological profile somewhere between sociopathy and psychopathy, otherwise they are not able to make the decisions their social positions require them to make. So when someone rises to the top of a social structure espousing as one of its core values 'peace, love and understanding' it smacks of, if not hypocrisy the downright lying. Those of us who are not religious can stomach these tendencies in our political leaders (if we are honest we'd all rather have the political liar and cheats on our side of the negotiation table) we will not accept it in those who pretend to be good Christians when it is so obvious they cannot be. What is worse is we all know that leaders cannot be altruistic, otherwise they would never be able to lead, and yet their followers seem willing to ignore this hypocrisy right at the heart of altruistic structures. It's collective idiocy.

MM

[Drich]

right now in Fl a produce harvester can expect to make 15.00 a day, unless he can pick what the grow predetermines as a quota. If he can do this then he can expect a bonus based on the bushel or pound of produce picked. I have never heard of anyone earning over 100 dollars even in the 12 to 14 hours that some pickers work.

Meh, I've made and paid $10/hr for a good picker. Cost to consumer for the maters, lettuce, or strawberries was the same. Guess slavery isn't required here - nor are we forced to support it either directly or indirectly - as sloppily as you've chosen to define it.
(I actually prefer a profit share by the bushel/head/pint...but that's just me..I'm enterprising like that)

sloppy.. I quoted the actual law concerning this matter.

Even if it is not required we have legislation on the books that permits it. That you cannot argue. Nor can you argue that the vast majority of the medium to large farms/plantations utilize a quota picking system, rather than an hourly wage.

Hourly wages are usally reserved for farms not large enough to support a quota based pick.

Quota picks allow the larger farm/plantation keep harvest costs down. On crops that may not have the same per acre yield as say strawberries.

[The Grand Nudger]

sloppy.. I quoted the actual law concerning this matter.

Even if it is not required we have legislation on the books that permits it. That you cannot argue. Nor can you argue that the vast majority of the medium to large farms/plantations utilize a quota picking system, rather than an hourly wage.

I don't write the laws or have any control over what other people do. Neither slavery nor exploitative labor is required - regardless of whether law or god permits it. Congratulations, you're still aiming for the gutter.

Hourly wages are usally reserved for farms not large enough to support a quota based pick.

Quota picks allow the larger farm/plantation keep harvest costs down. On crops that may not have the same per acre yield as say strawberries.

Long Version:

---

Variance in yield between crops relative to acreage under production has no significant effect on the labor cost of harvest in any harvest where hand pickers are required or desired. Some crops yield heavy and take forever to pick. Some light and they're easy to pick. The motion is a repetitive bending or lifting - it's the same motion regardless of yield and the main determinant in labor hours required for harvest (post harvest can be another issue, of course). How often can you stoop 24 inches, grab, drop on the belt, and step forward. The weight or size of the crop doesn't matter - none of them are any bigger than a hand can hold. That's why you're using hand pickers. It's light work mostly about finesse and pace. Variance in yield matters alot more when you go mechanical. The tool end is always working, so the more crop (relative to total mass) becomes a determining factor.

---

Short version: A machine can pick up more crop if there's more crop under it's tool. Hand pickers pick the crop at the same speed per lb regardless of acreage under production or yield per acre per crop.

None of this matters, it's just diversionary bullshit, of course. You know what would be even cheaper? Lets just not pay those pickers at all. Plenty of peanuts and cotton in the world.

[Drich]

The problem is that you're equivocating two differnet connotations of the word. I don't expect you to understand that; I'm posting this for the audience watching your performance here.

Folks --

Is Dirch trying to apologist slavery..... there is no apologizing slavery...
I'm with Parkers i am generally pissed off and amused Dirch by your ignorance and also offended that you would think these sort of things.
You Dirch have no sense of humanity....

I don't generally use words like idot or stupid, but you guys are broader lining the actual meaning of these two words so much so nothing else seems to fit.

Either way I will try again.

The bible supports slavery. Why? Because God knows we can not live in communities/societies/cities/countries without having these social economic structures being built on the backs of or maintained by active slavery. (If you donot think this is true then here is an oppertunity for you to list out countries that has not been constructed this way or is not being currently being maintained this way.)

Now because we all are living off the backs of slaves, God/the bible would hold us to account for reaping these benfits, in that we are to ensure that our modern day slaves do indeed have all the rights and respect as the rest of the brothers and sisters in Christ.

The problem I see is that you all want to pretend that unless a black man is chained up in a field forced to pick cotton for no money, that whatever else is happening is not slavery. The problem with this closed minded (the world is flat) way of thinking? It is not consistant with the actual verifiable defination of slavery. While the black man I described falls under that defination of slavery, the word slavery is not completely defined by that one example.

To limit the defination of slavery to the 18th century's version, is to not take responsiablity for all those who live and work under the rules of the companies we directly support with our dollars. This does keep prices low, but it also allows these companies to operate with very little oversite or accountability. If the stupid in our collective soceities keep and maintain the 18th century defination of slavery, it allows companies who employ slaves to do whatever they like just so long as they don't chain black people in cotton fields. This may sound good to an idiot, but even so There is a lot of terrible things between being chained in a cotton field and the minimum wage/work requirements the rest of us enjoy.

One more time. Slavery is alive and well, and just because we renamed it so the self righteous can sleep at night,it doesn't mean it is not still slavery. We need slavery until we can make robots to do these jobs otherwise life as we know it would stop.

[Spooky]

Is Dirch trying to apologist slavery..... there is no apologizing slavery...
I'm with Parkers i am generally pissed off and amused Dirch by your ignorance and also offended that you would think these sort of things.
You Dirch have no sense of humanity....

I don't generally use words like idot or stupid, but you guys are broader lining the actual meaning of these two words so much so nothing else seems to fit.

Either way I will try again.

The bible supports slavery. Why? Because God knows we can not live in communities/societies/cities/countries without having these social economic structures being built on the backs of or maintained by active slavery. (If you donot think this is true then here is an oppertunity for you to list out countries that has not been constructed this way or is not being currently being maintained this way.)

Now because we all are living off the backs of slaves, God/the bible would hold us to account for reaping these benfits, in that we are to ensure that our modern day slaves do indeed have all the rights and respect as the rest of the brothers and sisters in Christ.

The problem I see is that you all want to pretend that unless a black man is chained up in a field forced to pick cotton for no money, that whatever else is happening is not slavery. The problem with this closed minded (the world is flat) way of thinking? It is not consistant with the actual verifiable defination of slavery. While the black man I described falls under that defination of slavery, the word slavery is not completely defined by that one example.

To limit the defination of slavery to the 18th century's version, is to not take responsiablity for all those who live and work under the rules of the companies we directly support with our dollars. This does keep prices low, but it also allows these companies to operate with very little oversite or accountability. If the stupid in our collective soceities keep and maintain the 18th century defination of slavery, it allows companies who employ slaves to do whatever they like just so long as they don't chain black people in cotton fields. This may sound good to an idiot, but even so There is a lot of terrible things between being chained in a cotton field and the minimum wage/work requirements the rest of us enjoy.

One more time. Slavery is alive and well, and just because we renamed it so the self righteous can sleep at night,it doesn't mean it is not still slavery. We need slavery until we can make robots to do these jobs otherwise life as we know it would stop.

[abaris]

The real thing to puke over is the "god made it so" argument. So instead of fighting the injustice by trying to not support companies doing it and donating to NGOs, who actually take an international stance against inhumane labor conditions, this guy just leans back and says, it's in the bible, it can't be wrong.

Disgusting is to weak a word to describe it.

[Bibliofagus]

Fucking slavery is okay because the chinese get shitty wages? For real?

[Drich]

sloppy.. I quoted the actual law concerning this matter.

Even if it is not required we have legislation on the books that permits it. That you cannot argue. Nor can you argue that the vast majority of the medium to large farms/plantations utilize a quota picking system, rather than an hourly wage.

I don't write the laws or have any control over what other people do. Neither slavery nor exploitative labor is required - regardless of whether law or god permits it. Congratulations, you're still aiming for the gutter.

Hourly wages are usally reserved for farms not large enough to support a quota based pick.

Quota picks allow the larger farm/plantation keep harvest costs down. On crops that may not have the same per acre yield as say strawberries.

Long Version:

---

Variance in yield between crops relative to acreage under production has no significant effect on the labor cost of harvest in any harvest where hand pickers are required or desired. Some crops yield heavy and take forever to pick. Some light and they're easy to pick. The motion is a repetitive bending or lifting - it's the same motion regardless of yield and the main determinant in labor hours required for harvest (post harvest can be another issue, of course). How often can you stoop 24 inches, grab, drop on the belt, and step forward. The weight or size of the crop doesn't matter - none of them are any bigger than a hand can hold. That's why you're using hand pickers. It's light work mostly about finesse and pace. Variance in yield matters alot more when you go mechanical. The tool end is always working, so the more crop (relative to total mass) becomes a determining factor.

---

Short version: A machine can pick up more crop if there's more crop under it's tool. Hand pickers pick the crop at the same speed per lb regardless of acreage under production or yield per acre per crop.

None of this matters, it's just diversionary bullshit, of course. You know what would be even cheaper? Lets just not pay those pickers at all. Plenty of peanuts and cotton in the world.

On the idea you can't control other.. You alone no. But we as a community when we get together and demand a fair wage for those who work for of our growers. Ever heard the term" fair trade coffee?" If not Google it. In short fair trade coffee is a prime example where soceity has demanded an industry to pull themselves out of the realm of pure profit and pay/provide their slaves a living wage.

I do not disagree that right now not everyone has to employ slave labor. But if everyone got a fair trade in all food harvesting, the common man could not afford to buy it.

What makes fair trade coffee and small organic farms possible are the mega farms/plantations pumping out the volume of food needed to supply the billions of others who do not have the option to hold out for 'fair trade' food.

---

The real thing to puke over is the "god made it so" argument. So instead of fighting the injustice by trying to not support companies doing it and donating to NGOs, who actually take an international stance against inhumane labor conditions, this guy just leans back and says, it's in the bible, it can't be wrong.

Disgusting is to weak a word to describe it.

So... Is it your belief that inequality does not exist? Or is it your belief that we need inequality to one degree or another?

Because rather than fighting it you and yours do t seem to have made much head way in making everything equal.

---

Fucking slavery is okay because the chinese get shitty wages? For real?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem I see is that you all want to pretend that unless a black man is chained up in a field forced to pick cotton for no money, that whatever else is happening is not slavery. The problem with this closed minded (the world is flat) way of thinking? It is not consistant with the actual verifiable defination of slavery. While the black man I described falls under that defination of slavery, the word slavery is not completely defined by that one example.

The problem you have, as pointed out earlier, is that you are equivocating two different connotations of the word slavery and using the milder one, that of having to work hard for low wages, to justify your god's approval of the cruelest one, that of one person owning another as property. You are pulling a verbal bait-and-switch. People who buy cheap Chinese goods do not own another human being, they do not command their forced labor that is demanded without compensation, and they don't go over to China and beat the ever-loving shit out of the factory workers when their iPhone goes tits up. You can pretend that you're not making this false equivocation all you want, but the fact is that you are, and you are doing so in order to justify what you consider to be the moral propriety of one human being owning another simply because a book tells you that it's okay.

Others may or may not support sweatshop labor, which is not slavery in the sense meant in the Bible, but you, you support the propriety of one human being owning another as property. You believe that some people should not be free except as their master decrees. You advocate a disgusting, vile, and evil morality, and I only wish I could truck American Christians in by the busload to this thread so that they could see your iniquity and moral turpitude. I don't doubt that you'd aid the deconversion process in them.