|
Post by blondie on Feb 11, 2007 9:09:43 GMT -5
In 1845 the largest Protestant denomination in America broke away from its parent church to form the Southern Baptist convention. The two main issues of decent were missionary work and slavery. The Southern Baptists were pro-slavery. Biblically they were correct. There is nothing in the OT or NT to discourage slavery. The standard Christian apology for this is usually something like: "You have to read between the lines," "If you read the whole Bible you get some general feeling that slavery is wrong," or "God changed his mind about slavery after the Civil War." religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.htmlwww.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htmOf course their have been many Christians who opposed slavery. They might have been good people, but they weren't very good Christians.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 11, 2007 10:38:28 GMT -5
"There is nothing in the OT or NT to discourage slavery."
Prove your premise and give an example of "slavery" referenced in the Bible that is comparable to American slavery.
I'll help you along by stating the fact that there are differences between indentured servitude and "slavery" as it was done in America. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 11, 2007 20:18:46 GMT -5
How about those right wing conservatives who claim to be Christian yet accept bribes on a daily basis? And the idiots who follow them and keep them in office (they do so and say they are supporting "Christians"...) Pretty sickening.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 11, 2007 22:04:56 GMT -5
blondie - I won't even wait for you to respond, I'll just give this link that will counter anything you can come up with or find on the internet from the Christian/Bible hating web sites. It saves time and the work I am linking to is very comprehensive on the subject and documented very well. www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.htmlkiller- Who are these politicians that accept bribes on a daily basis? Have you reported these crimes to the authorities? It is sickening and hopefully your evidence will be used to press criminal charges agaist these politicians. Please tell us the facts on your investigation.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on Feb 11, 2007 23:41:11 GMT -5
re: Killa... "How about those right wing conservatives who claim to be Christian yet accept bribes on a daily basis?"
Re: Phina... "killer- Who are these politicians that accept bribes on a daily basis?" My guess is that he had a typo in that sentence... Probably meant "brides"...
Young ones, male ones, maybe a few mutaa marriages just to show understanding of other religions too...
(I don't think he was talking politicians exclusively... LOL)
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 12, 2007 10:20:28 GMT -5
Money for votes = bribery.
Also
Using taxpayers money to give favors to friends/donors for projects = stealing.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 10:44:40 GMT -5
Money for votes = bribery. Also Using taxpayers money to give favors to friends/donors for projects = stealing. Everybody that donates money to a candidate is bribing them? I thought the purpose of giving money was so that they would have the finances to run and win a campaign, therefore putting the person that you want to represent you, into office. I didn't know I was breaking the law all these years. Attack Machine, please expose this crime to the American public. You should give any evidence you have in regards to politicians bypassing the bidding process for tax funded projects to the Attorney General.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 12, 2007 10:55:13 GMT -5
Are you Lee Davis?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 11:05:59 GMT -5
Are you Bill Maher?
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 12, 2007 11:28:30 GMT -5
No, I'm not Bill. Are you Lee?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 12:12:34 GMT -5
LOL...yeah, this line of reasoning is rather stupid. I am not Lee Davis. You are making rather direct accusations about Christians in politics that are Conservatives, while excluding other people. If you have proof that this goes on only by Christian Conservatives, then present it. If not then you are talking out of your biased ass.
|
|
freeyourmind
Cog in Training
"Where no one has gone before."
Posts: 52
|
Post by freeyourmind on Feb 12, 2007 13:31:46 GMT -5
Slavery in the Bible Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock. The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock. However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)[/b] The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated. If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these? The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave? When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)[/b] So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them! What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing. When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)[/b] In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong. The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)[/b] From Here
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 13:38:31 GMT -5
www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html proves evilbible.com conclusions are wrong. It addresses every one of those points. So, you can either read both and determine the truth or stick with evilbible and hold to an ignorant viewpoint that obviously has an axe to grind.
|
|
freeyourmind
Cog in Training
"Where no one has gone before."
Posts: 52
|
Post by freeyourmind on Feb 12, 2007 13:49:47 GMT -5
So, telling people it's okay to beat you "endentured Servants" until they die a few days later is moral?
You can make yourself feel better all you want by saying that slavery was different back then, but the truth is that God was okay with slavery.
Nothing written in the link you provided disproves anything, unless you run around in circles with the "endentured servant" argument, which is wrong.
People didn't rape "endentured servants".
People didn't hold "endentured servants" family hostage until they agreed to become lifelong "endentured servants".
As far as sex slaves, go read this:
1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
God doesn't seem to mind people stealing women and using them as sex slaves does he?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 15:45:35 GMT -5
"So, telling people it's okay to beat you "endentured Servants" until they die a few days later is moral?"You of course are refering to Ex:21:21. If you actually read the bible instead of pulling out quotes out of context you would have looked at Ex: 21:20....which reads: Ex 21:20 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. KJV The link I gave DOES address what you are pointing out....because you didn't read the documentation, here it is: Not only was abusive treatment of servants strictly forbidden, but the Law held masters very accountable!
§ If a master beat a slave and the slave died, the master was held accountable under the 'life for life' clause:
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished (Ex 21.20, NIV)
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged" (JPS Tanach translation)
"If a man shall strike his slave or his maidservant with the rod and he shall die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged." (Stone Edition Tanach translation)
§ If a master caused any type of permanent damage to a servant, the servant was given immediate freedom:
"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)
§ The above prescription is hugely instructive, in comparison to the ANE: In some ANE codes, a master could literally put out the eyes of his slaves![HI:HANEL, e.g., at Mari, 1:383; at Nuzi, 1:586]. This represents a MASSIVE departure from 'conventional morality' of the day!
§ And the above prescription is also instructive, in comparison to today: whereas typical insurance programs will pay 50% of maximum disability for 'loss of a single eye', they pay nothing for the loss of a tooth…(smile). But in the OT, there was a huge "disincentive" to strike one's slave in the face! [Legitimate community punishments were by rods, on the back. Facial blows were considered culpable.] The ANE, however, did NOT have the same 'respect' for the face of slaves--besides eye-gouging, they resorted to branding, cutting of the ears, mutilating the nose, etc-- IN THE LAW CODES!. These practices are NOT in Israel's law codes, and they are implied to be prohibited by the focus on penalties for striking the face.
§ And this passage is noted as being 'oddly humanitarian':
"In the case of bodily injury to slaves, whose status does not qualify them for equal compensation, the owner whose abuse results in the loss of an eye or a tooth is to free that slave, a remarkably humanitarian provision directed at cruelty and sadism in a slave-owner." [WBC]
§ The law allowed disciplinary rod-beating for a servant (Ex 21.20f), apparently under the same conditions as that for free men:
If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property (ksph--"silver"; not the normal word(s) for property, btw).
§ Free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Beating by rod (shevet) is the same act/instrument ( flogging (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 89.32). This verse is in parallel to verses 18-19. If two people fight but no one dies, the aggressor is punished by having to 'retributively' pay (out of his own money--"silver", ksph) for the victim's lost economic time and medical expenses. If it is a person's slave and this occurs, there is no (additional) economic payment--the lost productivity and medical expenses of the wounded servant are (punitive economic) loss alone. There was no other punishment for the actual damage done to the free-person in 18-19, and the slave seems to be treated in the same fashion. Thus, the 'property' attribute doesn't seem to suggest any real difference in ethical treatment of injury against a servant. Let's structure out the parallel:
................
§ This Exodus passage is very instructive, because it places slaves (both Hebrew and foreign, apparently) on a legal-protection par with full, free citizens. It no more 'authorizes' a master to abuse a slave, than it 'authorizes' a Hebrew to bash his fellow's head with a rock, knocking him unconscious for a day or so! Notice some of the commentators on this passage:
First, the JPS Torah Commentary [JPStorah, in loc]
"This law-the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters-is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation. It represents a qualitative transformation in social and human values and expresses itself once again in the provisions of verses 26-27. The underlying issue, as before, is the determination of intent on the part of the assailant at the time the act was committed.
his slave The final clause of verse 21 seems to indicate that the slave in question is a foreigner. Otherwise the terminology would be inappropriate, given the conditions under which an Israelite might become enslaved.
a rod Hebrew shevet, the customary instrument of discipline [2 Sam 7.14 (to the sons of David!); Is 10.5,24; Prov 10.13; 13.24; 23.13-14; 26.3]. The right of a master to discipline his slave within reason is recognized. But according to rabbinic exegesis, it is restricted to the use of an implement that does not normally have lethal potentiality, and it may not be applied to a part of the body considered to be particularly vulnerable.
There and then Literally, "under his hand," in contrast to "a day or two" in verse 21. The direct, immediate, causal relationship between the master's act and the death of the slave is undisputed. The master has unlawfully used deadly force, and homicidal intent is assumed.
He must be avenged The master is criminally liable and faces execution, in keeping with the law of verse…The verb n-k-m is popularly taken to signify "revenge." Actually, it means "to avenge," that is, to vindicate, or redress, the imbalance of justice. Its use in the Bible is overwhelmingly with God as the subject, and in such cases it always serves the ends of justice. It is employed in particular in situations in which normal judicial procedures are not effective or cannot be implemented. It does not focus on the desire to get even or to retaliate; indeed, Leviticus 19:18 forbids private vengeance.
"Verse 21. Should the beaten slave linger more than a day before succumbing, certain new and mitigating circumstances arise. The direct, causal relationship between the master's conduct and the slave's death is now in doubt, for there may have been some unknown intermediate cause. The intent of the master appears less likely to have been homicidal and more likely to have been disciplinary. He is given the benefit of the doubt, especially since he is losing his financial investment, the price of the slave." Then, [EBCOT]
"The second case involved a master striking his slave, male or female. Since the slave did not die immediately as a result of this act of using the rod (not a lethal weapon, however) but tarried for "a day or two" (v. 21), the master was given the benefit of the doubt; he was judged to have struck the slave with disciplinary and not homicidal intentions. This law is unprecedented in the ancient world where a master could treat his slave as he pleased. When this law is considered alongside the law in vv. 26-27, which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master, viz., his pocketbook, a whole new statement of the value and worth of the personhood of the slave is introduced. Thus if the master struck a slave severely enough only to injure one of his members, he lost his total investment immediately in that the slave won total freedom; or if he struck severely enough to kill the slave immediately, he was tried for capital punishment (vv. 18-19). The aim of this law was not to place the slave at the master's mercy but to restrict the master's power over him (cf. similar laws in the Code of Hammurabi 196-97, 200). [EBCOT]"You can make yourself feel better all you want by saying that slavery was different back then, but the truth is that God was okay with slavery."God was OK for the reasons why people would sell themselves into labor or would sell family into labor, the link documents the reasoning behind it. I would love for you to point out why you think those reasons were not valid. Also, unless you have your own buisness, you have sold yourself to another for your labor. Granted, there are differences between then and now due to our prosperity, but the jist is the same. "Nothing written in the link you provided disproves anything, unless you run around in circles with the "endentured servant" argument, which is wrong."Yes it does, you didn't read the documentation in the link, if you did you woudn't be making the statements of: "People didn't rape "endentured servants" and People didn't hold "endentured servants" family hostage until they agreed to become lifelong "endentured servants". If you read the documentation you would be discussing the RESPONSE of the documentation in scope of these questions. As far as sex slaves go....actually read the response in scope of this in the documentation link. If you find it wanting in logic or morality, then comment on the specific part you have a problem with and I will respond. "God doesn't seem to mind people stealing women and using them as sex slaves does he?"The link did not address the incident in Judges that I read. This addresses the first part of it and I will have to get back with you on the second part. The context of what these women were doing is probably germaine to the justification of taking them and Judges 21:22 alludes to the justification. www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1elma.htmThat being said, The event of Judges 21:22 were actions taken by man in his judgement, not God. "Judg 21 The Israelites lament for the Benjamites. "- Israel lamented for the Benjamites, and were perplexed by the oath they had taken, not to give their daughters to them in marriage. Men are more zealous to support their own authority than that of God. They would have acted better if they had repented of their rash oaths, brought sin-offerings, and sought forgiveness in the appointed way, rather than attempt to avoid the guilt of perjury by actions quite as wrong. That men can advise others to acts of treachery or violence, out of a sense of duty, forms a strong proof of the blindness of the human mind when left to itself, and of the fatal effects of a conscience under ignorance and error. (from Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database. Copyright © 2000, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)" The end of Judges 21 attests to that. So don't get confused into thinking that every act done by those described in the Bible were condoned by God or were correct. Judg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. KJV
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 12, 2007 17:55:36 GMT -5
phinehas wrote, "You are making rather direct accusations about Christians in politics that are Conservatives, while excluding other people. If you have proof that this goes on only by Christian Conservatives, then present it. If not then you are talking out of your biased ass."
Never said it went on "only" by Christian Conservatives. The bribery/stealing in gov. is rampant. Genuine Christians, however, should not participate in such behavior. So what's sickening about it is that they wave the Christian flag and get the support of other so-called Christians. The blind leading the blind.
And the term "Christian" being falsely used for gain.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 18:31:06 GMT -5
killer - You gave the impression that the "blind" Christians that are supporting the "blind" Christian Conservatives are the ones bribing them. What I am saying is that donating to a campaign is not bribery, do you think it is? If so, then you shouldn't exclude all others that are not Christian or Christian Conservative from your condemnation.
I don't disagree that a person that runs on a campaign giving the impression that they have a specific ideology, should follow that ideology when they are elected. If they don't then they should not be voted for by that constituiency that values that ideology in the future.
You say genuine Christians should not participate is bribery or stealing....are you saying others can and that they get a pass? If not, why point out the Christians is this way?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 12, 2007 20:15:59 GMT -5
Prove your premise and give an example of "slavery" referenced in the Bible that is comparable to American slavery. I'll help you along by stating the fact that there are differences between indentured servitude and "slavery" as it was done in America. Good luck. Well, the OT and NT didn't mention American slavery because America didn't exist. The Bible doesn't mention slavery justified by race because the concept of race didn't exist either. But slavery did exist. Slaves, not "servants." I forgot this argument. I heard it used by Richard Dixon on his radio show. He used the word "servant" instead of the word "slave." I guess the idea is that the slaves back in the Bible days were more like that butler on Average Joe than somebody worked to death in the salt mines who could be used, abused and even killed by his master. Sure there were Greek slaves who taught math to rich kids, but some of those house salves in America did about as well. No one with even a passing knowledge of history or the Bible would make this argument. But then I'm sure phinehas believes Jesus really turned water into grape juice. Thanks, Jesus, great party. The reason I linked to religioustolerance.org above is because they're such an objective source. But even the Catholics don't back away from slavery, they just try to rationalize it: www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 20:49:05 GMT -5
Prove your premise and give an example of "slavery" referenced in the Bible that is comparable to American slavery. I'll help you along by stating the fact that there are differences between indentured servitude and "slavery" as it was done in America. Good luck. Well, the OT and NT didn't mention American slavery because America didn't exist. *In no way did I infer that, I guess your trying to prove me wrong on something. might as well make it up.The Bible doesn't mention slavery justified by race because the concept of race didn't exist either. *The Bible distinguishes different ways of how the Israelites were to handle those in servitude that were Hebrews and those who were not. That is a fact and it is well documented in the link I gave.But slavery did exist. Slaves, not "servants." I forgot this argument. I heard it used by Richard Dixon on his radio show. He used the word "servant" instead of the word "slave." I guess the idea is that the slaves back in the Bible days were more like that butler on Average Joe than somebody worked to death in the salt mines who could be used, abused and even killed by his master. Sure there were Greek slaves who taught math to rich kids, but some of those house salves in America did about as well .*You can use the terminology of a slave all you want but you are the one that brought up AMERICA'S form of slavery in relation to the Baptists. The fact that the American form of slavery did not equal the slavery that the Hebrews practiced, is a fact and again, is well documented in the link I gave. No one with even a passing knowledge of history or the Bible would make this argument. *It is rather obvious that I have a much greater understanding of the Bible then you have and more likely will ever accquire. You have failed to offer up any biblical or historical proof that refutes the information I have given. It is also apparent that you have yet to read the documentation in the link.But then I'm sure phinehas believes Jesus really turned water into grape juice. Thanks, Jesus, great party. *This is an attempt to change the debate.The reason I linked to religioustolerance.org above is because they're such an objective source. *Maybe so, but it's missing a lot of information explained in my link that explains a lot in regards to the issue. This, "Until the advent of higher criticism of the Bible, many, if not most, Christians would have agreed with Jefferson Davis' concept that slavery "was established by decree of Almighty God." is just a stupid comment. God did not establish slavery...he gave direction in how the Hebrews would deal with it.But even the Catholics don't back away from slavery, they just try to rationalize it: www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 12, 2007 21:47:56 GMT -5
"The Bible distinguishes different ways of how the Israelites were to handle those in servitude that were Hebrews and those who were not. That is a fact and it is well documented in the link I gave."
I agree. They had no moral problem with slavery. Moses told them to treat their Hebrew slaves better than than your average Tom, Dick or Harry slave. So what?
"You can use the terminology of a slave all you want but you are the one that brought up AMERICA'S form of slavery in relation to the Baptists. The fact that the American form of slavery did not equal the slavery that the Hebrews practiced, is a fact and again, is well documented in the link I gave."
You're the Baptist. I think they were right about slavery in Christianity. The Bible says it's OK. I'm a humanist. We think it's wrong.
"It is rather obvious that I have a much greater understanding of the Bible then you have and more likely will ever acquire. You have failed to offer up any biblical or historical proof that refutes the information I have given. It is also apparent that you have yet to read the documentation in the link."
Funny, my understanding of the Bible is in line with scholars working at places like Oxford and Harvard while yours in more in line with primitive Baptist preachers holding court in the back of a Piggly Wiggly in Argo.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 12, 2007 22:43:11 GMT -5
You say you're a humanist and that slavery is wrong.
So you think the option of starving and dying back in ancient times was better than becoming a servant?
So you think the option of a family member dying and starving in ancient times was better than them becoming a servant?
So you think that the option of living in abject poverty in ancient times was a better option for some slaves that became wealthy enough that they had slaves of their own?
So you think that the option of not paying your debts in ancient times and the shame it brought on amongst other things, was a better option then going into servitude to pay off those debts?
Speaking in terms of these reasons above, which we can get into the others, you don't think servitude was a better option?
Servitude was not something that was a first option but a last option that was used in ancient times. There was no prosperity like today where people were given food stamps and received welfare checks. People back then took their obligations seriously and if their only recourse was to become a servant for a period of time in order to live, pay off debt or fullfill the monetary requirements of getting married, they did it.
I apologize for questioning your understanding of the Bible. It was in frustration in my perception, based on your continued comments, that you had not read the link I gave that that gave explanations to all but one of your questions via your link, etc. I will assume now that you have read the information in the link I provided and understood it.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Feb 13, 2007 15:49:28 GMT -5
phinehas wrote, "You say genuine Christians should not participate is bribery or stealing....are you saying others can and that they get a pass? If not, why point out the Christians is this way?"
No one should get a pass. I point out Christians because they should not participate in the behavior mentioned although the other (non-Christians) are participants. Christians know better and should set the example. Instead, it seems, they go along to get along.
Christians are supposed to be above the excuse of, "Well... they're doing it, so why can't I?"
It's clear to me that the Christians in our system of government are failing miserably to set an example. They are sucked into a bad system and are, apparently, too weak to rise above it.
What's worse is that they continue to get elected by their base because base says, "We must support the Christian... the ones who share our values... we must save America." All the while, their fellow is going with the flow... the wrong way. And they (the base) won't even realize it. That's blind!
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Feb 13, 2007 17:38:53 GMT -5
phinehas wrote, "You say genuine Christians should not participate is bribery or stealing....are you saying others can and that they get a pass? If not, why point out the Christians is this way?" No one should get a pass. I point out Christians because they should not participate in the behavior mentioned although the other (non-Christians) are participants. Christians know better and should set the example. Instead, it seems, they go along to get along. Christians are supposed to be above the excuse of, "Well... they're doing it, so why can't I?" It's clear to me that the Christians in our system of government are failing miserably to set an example. They are sucked into a bad system and are, apparently, too weak to rise above it. What's worse is that they continue to get elected by their base because base says, "We must support the Christian... the ones who share our values... we must save America." All the while, their fellow is going with the flow... the wrong way. And they (the base) won't even realize it. That's blind! For quite a few years now (actually many years) the 'in' thing...popular thing with the 'conservative crowd'/Republicans has been to claim/profess being Christian! Well, like the lady said to me once....''Please....call me a cab'' So I simply respected her request and replied, ''QK lady, you're a cab!'' I know you would be stunned to find that many more than claim to Christians (FOR REAL) ARE NOT ACTUALLY Christians! Of course God KNOWS who are 'Real'....and who are not! Just don't accept any at 'face value'......many are being deceived!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Feb 16, 2007 19:14:31 GMT -5
"Did you realise there are more slaves now than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. National Geographic estimates that there are 27 million men, women and children enslaved in the world today. They are either physically confined or restrained and forced to work, or controlled through violence. 13" www.plain-truth.org.uk/current_issue/cover_story.htm
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 17, 2007 15:33:23 GMT -5
"Did you realise there are more slaves now than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. No, but thanks. that's interesting. People need to stop associating slavery with the idea of "race." That was just some brief English/American rationalization. There were plenty of "white" slaves. There still are. A lot of women, even in America, are sex slaves. www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/USA.htm
|
|
|
Post by lawman on Feb 17, 2007 15:38:42 GMT -5
"Did you realise there are more slaves now than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. No, but thanks. that's interesting. People need to stop associating slavery with the idea of "race." That was just some brief English/American rationalization. There were plenty of "white" slaves. There still are. A lot of women, even in America, are sex slaves. www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/USA.htmblondie, were your parents athetists?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Feb 17, 2007 19:17:45 GMT -5
My dad was agnostic, my mom confused. They weren't particularly philosophically inclined like me and phinehas.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Feb 17, 2007 22:44:16 GMT -5
I think the solution for this is for everyone who owned a slave to apologize to everyone who was a slave.
Next issue?
|
|