Slavery part of Christian heritage in the U.S.?

Questioninggeller · 8th July 2009, 03:37 PM

Yesterday Representative Steve King (R-IA) was the only member to vote against recognizing history of slave labor in the U.S. capitol. The House of Representatives voted 399-1 for the Capitol Visitors Center to have a plaque acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol.

King's reason? Well, its an interesting one. He says it was to protest "a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol".

Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers.

runnah · 8th July 2009, 03:44 PM

A sixth grader should throw a history book at his face.

When I was young I had this notion that politicians were the cream of the crop.

Tricky · 8th July 2009, 04:12 PM

It is not just part of the history of the United States, it is part of the history of the land we now call America.

One of the things that always gets mentioned in American history books is how the Pilgrims survived a very hard first few years with the aid of a helpful Native American called Tisquantum or Squanto. Here's what the history books rarely tell you.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

On his way back to his tribe in 1614, Tisquantum was kidnapped by another Englishman, Thomas Hunt. Hunt was one of John Smith's lieutenants. Hunt was planning to sell fish, corn, and captured slaves in Málaga, Spain. Hunt attempted to sell Tisquantum and a number of other Native Americans into slavery for £20 apiece.

Sir Ferdinando Gorges, in A Brief Relation of the Discovery and Plantation of New England (London, 1622) wrote that some local friars, however, discovered what Hunt was attempting and took the remaining Indians, Tisquantum included, in order to instruct them in the Christian faith.

It is pretty amazing that Squanto was willing to help these folks after being kidnapped. Stockholm syndrome, I guess.

HansMustermann · 8th July 2009, 04:36 PM

Hmm, maybe I'm missing some context there, but I really don't get what he's trying to say there. That quote doesn't even say to me that slavery is part of the christian heritage, but... that acknowledging slavery is somehow an effort to erase the traces of christian heritage. I mean, umm, wth? How? Either I'm missing some context there or right-wing rationalizations get dumber by the day.

ServiceSoon · 8th July 2009, 05:20 PM

Well, I would have voted no too, but for a different reason.

Tricky · 8th July 2009, 06:21 PM

Maybe I interpreted it wrong, or maybe I was just looking for an excuse to reveal that rather sordid and obscure bit of American history.

And maybe Questioninggellar will come back and explain exactly what he/she is asking.

Questioninggeller · 8th July 2009, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Hmm, maybe I'm missing some context there, but I really don't get what he's trying to say there. That quote doesn't even say to me that slavery is part of the christian heritage, but... that acknowledging slavery is somehow an effort to erase the traces of christian heritage. I mean, umm, wth? How? Either I'm missing some context there or right-wing rationalizations get dumber by the day.

King's statement, as far as I can tell, has no clear connection to his vote. That is, him complaining of a "liberal" conspiracy and voting against the resolution doesn't make sense unless he thinks its just "liberals" who want to remember slavery and he's opposed to everything "liberals" want in order to protest the liberal conspiracy.

On the other hand, slavery, with various justifications such as Biblical ones, is part of the "U.S. Christian heritage." And King wants to remember "Christian heritage."

Robster, FCD · 8th July 2009, 09:19 PM

Apparently, some visitor center doesn't have enough christian symbology, so he is throwing a fit.

lightfire22000 · 8th July 2009, 09:33 PM

post deleted

Ducky · 8th July 2009, 09:33 PM

So to follow in his example:

I refuse to vote for any resolution to recognize gooberplathworgals because horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history.

lightfire22000 · 8th July 2009, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers.

There's still A christian heritage. It just isn't exclusive. It was founded by people with varying religious views. More interestingly, many of the founders that identified as Christian adhered to theologies that certainly wouldn't be considered Christian by many of today's major churches. Declaration signer Benjamin Rush was one of the biggest advocates of Christianity in public life and in government. However, his theology would probably be considered "universalist" by many of today's self-identified Christian leaders.

A country can't have a religion at all. Think about it. How can a company believe something? How can an organization espouse a point of view? Only individuals can have a religion as far as I see. So I wouldn't say it's a secular country since I associate that term with a conscious absence of religion, but I'd say it's just a country.

Christianity was indisputably used to not only justify, but to encourage slavery so I don't know why anyone would view a discussion of slavery as anti-Christian. Whether the people who used Christianity to justify slavery sincerely believed they had a religious duty to enslave people is another story.

Sorry about the double post.

lightfire22000 · 8th July 2009, 09:38 PM

post deleted

Foolmewunz · 8th July 2009, 09:39 PM

He's playing to his constituency, which would be.... Lemme guess.... Conservative Christians, perhaps?

The bill was going to get passed in a landslide. This was his chance to get some press coverage back home and speak up for Christian Values and all that rot.

Politics as usual.

ETA: Oooh, wait.... Never mind... I didn't remember him, what with all the attention Iowa gets nowadays.

Steve King???? The guy who said that Joe McCarthy is an American hero????

The guy who predicted, about our current President,

Quote:

"I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King

MG1962 · 8th July 2009, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

It is pretty amazing that Squanto was willing to help these folks after being kidnapped. Stockholm syndrome, I guess.

At the risk of derailing this thread, I believe the answer was infinately more complex

Meadmaker · 8th July 2009, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Maybe I interpreted it wrong, or maybe I was just looking for an excuse to reveal that rather sordid and obscure bit of American history.

Which I must say is something I, for one, appreciate. If you can't learn useless but entertaining trivia on a forum, it just isn't worth reading.

On the subject of the OP, I think Rep. King might have some 'splainin' to do.

Ducky · 8th July 2009, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ducky

So to follow in his example:

I refuse to vote for any resolution to recognize gooberplathworgals because horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history.

What the hell? Aren't there any gooberplathworgals that are going to protest me for not voting for them because the horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history?

Apparently gooberplathworgals and horsenpheifferschmogletards alike are just sheeple.

I WILL FIGHT! MY CONSTITUENCY CAN COUNT ON ME TO FIGHT THE DAMNED HORSENPHEIFFERSCHMOGLETARDS! TO HELL WITH THE GOOBERPLATHWORGALS!

Look, someone just laugh at this please? You know how goddam hard it is to type gooberplathworgals and horsenpheifferschmogletards? Take one for the team and just reply with a lol.

Foster Zygote · 9th July 2009, 02:59 PM

Quick! Somebody give Ducky the Heimlich!

autumn1971 · 9th July 2009, 11:22 PM

To be fair, the gentleman from Iowa wanted to voice a (stupid) protest, so he probably selected this bill because it was guaranteed to pass by a huge margin. Sure, he'll lose his district's black vote, but his district probably only has a black vote (howdy, Tom).

hamelekim · 9th July 2009, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Yesterday Representative Steve King (R-IA) was the only member to vote against recognizing history of slave labor in the U.S. capitol. The House of Representatives voted 399-1 for the Capitol Visitors Center to have a plaque acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol.

King's reason? Well, its an interesting one. He says it was to protest "a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol".

Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers.

Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition.

Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't make them a Christian, just as calling yourself a Doctor doesn't make you a doctor without the education and degrees.

But yes, I thought it was rather hypocritical of him to deny slavery but he wants to acknowledge Christian heritage of the US.

Questioninggeller · 10th July 2009, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by hamelekim

Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition.

Christian belief includes the Old Testament, which is full of justifications/glorification of slavery.

Originally Posted by hamelekim

Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't make them a Christian, just as calling yourself a Doctor doesn't make you a doctor without the education and degrees.

Formal education and its clear cut requirement, and religion are not the same thing.

If someone says the believe in the Christian religion and we have records of them saying/practicing that then there is no reason to doubt it.

What "makes" someone a Christian?

joobz · 10th July 2009, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by hamelekim

Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition.

Then why does Jesus use Slavery as an example for teaching morality and for describing our relationship with him.

Can you show passages in the bible where Jesus condemns slavery?

Jesus, as described in the bible, wasn't too concerned about slavery.

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Jesus, as described in the bible, wasn't too concerned about slavery.

Why would he be?

joobz · 10th July 2009, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Why would he be?

If he was merely a man, he wouldn't be.
If he was god incarnate, he should have been.

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

If he was merely a man, he wouldn't be.
If he was god incarnate, he should have been.

Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered.

joobz · 10th July 2009, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered.

Yes, I do. That's a classic apologist attempt at trying to minimize the issue. Please explain why partial ownership of a person is acceptable by god's standard. Please show why this makes it "ok" for slavery to be condoned in the bible.

Let's state it another way:
If god is ok with slavery (in any of its forms), then god is immoral and not worthy of worship.

ETA:
What about the parable where jesus explains that it's ok to beat a slave for violating a rule that he was unaware of (provided that the master would punish the slave who knowingly violated a rule more severely)?

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

Yes, I do. That's a classic apologist attempt at trying to minimize the issue. Please explain why partial ownership of a person is acceptable by god's standard. Please show why this makes it "ok" for slavery to be condoned in the bible.

How so, if you agree the modern meaning of the word is not the same as as used in the OT - why do I have to defend a contextual arguement that you agree does not exist

Quote:

Let's state it another way:
If god is ok with slavery (in any of its forms), then god is immoral and not worthy of worship.

Being gay in 1895 meant something completely different to being gay in 2005 - Is it immoral to condem the original meaning of the word because of a modern evolution in meaning?

Quote:

ETA:
What about the parable where jesus explains that it's ok to beat a slave for violating a rule that he was unaware of (provided that the master would punish the slave who knowingly violated a rule more severely)?

Could you point out that particular verse?

HansMustermann · 10th July 2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered.

Oh, you mean the kind of OT slavery where according to God it was OK to beat a slave savagely, just as long as it's not to death? With the clause that if it doesn't die on the same day, then, wth, it wasn't from the beating and you're good to go?

See: Exodus 21:20-21.

Oh, or you mean that male Hebrew slaves had to be freed on the 7'th year? Well, that's fine and dandy, but foreign slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46) or female slaves (Exodus 21:7) didn't have to be freed, ever.

Oh, and Exodus 21:3-4 is just _precious_ about freeing those Hebrew slaves: "f he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 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." You know, you can go if you want to, but you must leave your wife and children behind in slavery.

Oops, it still wouldn't have been a better situation for those African-Americans if it were by old Hebrew law after all.

Oh, and if someone rapes a female slave who was engaged to someone else? She shall be scourged, and he gets to redeem himself by sacrificing at the temple. She shall not be killed for it because she wasn't free. (Leviticus 19:20-21) (Aww, gee, isn't that generous. You got raped, but we won't kill you for it.)

No mention of any punishment exists for raping a female slave who wasn't engaged to someone else. Were those fair game?

Actually, wait, those _were_ fair game:

- Deuteronomy 21:10-14: basically, when you go to war, you can take a woman as a slave if you lust for her, shave her head, let her mourn her family for a month (wouldn't want to be inhuman there or anything), then go rape her. (More literally, go make her your wife... whether she wants it or not.) And if you find that she's no good in bed and you don't want more of that, just let her go. You can't sell her for money any more, 'cause, you know, you "humbled" her. (Aw, gee, isn't it just precious that the punishment for the guy who killed your family and raped you, is that he can't also sell you into slavery?)

- Genesis 16:1-2, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9-10: The same thing repeated 3 times by 3 different people. So I'm guessing it must have been a common or generally accepted thing to do. Basically, "Behold, I can't seem to get pregnant so go bone the maid and leave her pregnant, and we'll call the result our child by proxy." I'm so sure that the slave maid properly appreciated the honour about to be bestowed on her.

joobz · 10th July 2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

How so, if you agree the modern meaning of the word is not the same as as used in the OT - why do I have to defend a contextual arguement that you agree does not exist

Because god isn't temporally bound. If you wish to claim that Jesus was simply a man of his time, than you have no argument from me. But the moment we pretend that Jesus is god incarnate, he is no longer bound by that same limitation.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Being gay in 1895 meant something completely different to being gay in 2005 - Is it immoral to condem the original meaning of the word because of a modern evolution in meaning?

That's a rather fallacious comparison. We aren't speaking of a change in word definition, we are speaking of a concept: Slavery.

If you think that the slavery of the bible isn't a big deal, then explain why.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Could you point out that particular verse?

Luke 12:47-48
" 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Oh, you mean the kind of OT slavery where according to God it was OK to beat a slave savagely, just as long as it's not to death? With the clause that if it doesn't die on the same day, then, wth, it wasn't from the beating and you're good to go?

Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time. The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property. Or the fixed term of the slavery. Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave

Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US.

The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause

joobz · 10th July 2009, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time. The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property. Or the fixed term of the slavery. Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave

...the slavery that allows a person to become a slave as a punishment for loosing a war... The slavery that makes killing a slave legal (provided the slave doesn't die within three days of the blow)... The slavery that makes a person OWN another...

Originally Posted by MG1962

Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US.

I don't need to. I am not merely talking about modern slavery but both forms. I find both to be immoral.

let's pretend that Jesus is ok with one and not the other... Are you ok with that? Is that an acceptable form of morality for a benevolent god?

Originally Posted by MG1962

The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause

You're ok with this? This is the kind of slavery that you're ok with god condoning?

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

That's a rather fallacious comparison. We aren't speaking of a change in word definition, we are speaking of a concept: Slavery.

Absoultely not - slavery in the OT was a punishment for a crime, or injustice to a person. It had defined period, get out clause, and instructions about what was acceptable and not acceptable.

Convicts brought to Australia to work as forced labor had even less rights than their Jewish counterparts, but were never considered slaves. To compare either case to slavery to the New World or even the dreadful modern day slave trading is simply without foundation.

Quote:

If you think that the slavery of the bible isn't a big deal, then explain why.

I dont make judgements of societies I have no contextual relevance to

Quote:

Luke 12:47-48
" 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

I am not sure I see how that passage advances your arguement. There are certain things a slave should know they cant do, regardless if they have been specifically told or not - example burning down the house, stealing money etc etc

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

I don't need to. I am not merely talking about modern slavery but both forms. I find both to be immoral.

Then you are promoting the abolishion of all penal institutions, especially those that have a labour component to the prison term?

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

You're ok with this? This is the kind of slavery that you're ok with god condoning?

Condoning what, that a master can still be punished if the beating is the cause of death. But not punishing the master if the slave dies of old age two days after the beating

joobz · 10th July 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Absoultely not - slavery in the OT was a punishment for a crime, or injustice to a person.

not exclusively. You can have a slave as part of a battle.

Originally Posted by MG1962

It had defined period, get out clause, and instructions about what was acceptable and not acceptable.

So, you think it's ok that Jesus condones this kind of slavery? you are free to beleive so, I simply say that such a view is hardly indicative of a divine noble morality.

Originally Posted by MG1962

I dont make judgements of societies I have no contextual relevance to

That's a cop out.

If you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, that's fine. But If you are attempting to excuse Jesus' condoning of slavery that's another thing. I've noticed you keep avoiding this issue.

Originally Posted by MG1962

I am not sure I see how that passage advances your arguement. There are certain things a slave should know they cant do, regardless if they have been specifically told or not - example burning down the house, stealing money etc etc

There's no mention on the reasonableness of the rules. Merely that if a slave breaks a rule, you can beat him (physically). That's the merciful and just will of god.

HansMustermann · 10th July 2009, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time.

Oh yes, because someone who's a slave without an income beyond the bare-subsistence-level meal he gets, is so going to just go to the ATM and buy himself free. That's such a poor excuse, I'm sure you can do better.

And technically the blacks in the USA could buy themselves free by proxy. There are a lot of blacks who appear on historical records as owning other blacks, because they basically bought them and freed them. (But most still were registered as slaves as a tax dodge.)

Originally Posted by MG1962

The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property.

Bzzt. Just plain old false. Taking slaves in war is encouraged all over the place, even (or especially) from the non-combatant women and _children_ of those neighbouring nation.

Sorry, but being a child in a nation that got attacked, does not constitute punishment for debt or damage to property. Those hadn't caused any damage to anyone in the invading army.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Or the fixed term of the slavery.

Did you even bother _reading_ those verses I supplied as reference? The fixed term was only for male Jews. Women or foreigners were to be held slaves for _life_ and inherited by your heirs.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave

Again, only if the slave was a male Jew. For anyone else, even for the woman taken and raped in that war, you didn't have to give them jack squat.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US.

Considering that they didn't apply to foreigners taken as slaves in the OT either, why? All those restrictions on slavery were only for Hebrew male citizens. Period. By comparison, in the USA if you were a citizen, you couldn't even be a slave at all. So, even in that aspect, yeah, the USA did better.

Originally Posted by MG1962

The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause

"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."

I don't read "a day or two" as "two", but ok, two days. Does it make it less of an atrocity? If I beat someone up and he dies after two days from internal bleeding, would that absolve me of manslaughter in any civilized country? WTH?

As for the arbitration, I call plain old BS. The text doesn't say that, it says, literally, "no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property". There is no mention of arbitration or judges or anything. Stop making stuff up, basically.

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

So, you think it's ok that Jesus condones this kind of slavery? you are free to beleive so, I simply say that such a view is hardly indicative of a divine noble morality.

Given I have seen no evidence that slavery rules of the Hebrews were based on any moral code I am not sure there is a case to argue either way

Quote:

That's a cop out.

Not at all - we are all product of out times and the society we live in. Because today we consider something abhorent, does not mean that morality should be projected backwards through time. To the Romans, anal sex was considered healthy and acceptable even between same sex participants. Oral sex however could be punished in very nasty ways. Our society has almost an opposite view of the these two forms of sexual activity.

Have I the right to judge the attitudes of the Romans from my seemingly more enlightened moral position. Or simply accept they did and thought about things differently to me?

Quote:

If you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, that's fine. But If you are attempting to excuse Jesus' condoning of slavery that's another thing. I've noticed you keep avoiding this issue.

I dont see debating the nature of Christ as adding to this debate. We are debating what he said and the context of those comments. Regardless if Jesus is the son of God, or a carpenter with the gift of the gab, it still does not change what he is reported to have said or how that applies to the modern world

Quote:

There's no mention on the reasonableness of the rules. Merely that if a slave breaks a rule, you can beat him (physically). That's the merciful and just will of god.

Because you are taking that passage in isolation, and not part of the rest of Hebrew writings on subjects such as murder

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 11:16 AM

sorry

MG1962 · 10th July 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Oh yes, because someone who's a slave without an income beyond the bare-subsistence-level meal he gets, is so going to just go to the ATM and buy himself free. That's such a poor excuse, I'm sure you can do better.

Well if he could go to the ATM and get the money in the first place, he would not have been a slave - and you are asking me to do better

Quote:

And technically the blacks in the USA could buy themselves free by proxy. There are a lot of blacks who appear on historical records as owning other blacks, because they basically bought them and freed them. (But most still were registered as slaves as a tax dodge.)

How is that a reasonable comparison. If the slave owner chose not to sell the slave....tough. Under Hebrew law, anyone turned up with the money to cover the freedom of the slave, the offer could not be refused

Quote:

Sorry, but being a child in a nation that got attacked, does not constitute punishment for debt or damage to property. Those hadn't caused any damage to anyone in the invading army.

So war retribution has never existed?

Quote:

Did you even bother _reading_ those verses I supplied as reference? The fixed term was only for male Jews. Women or foreigners were to be held slaves for _life_ and inherited by your heirs.

Incorrect - Deuteronomy 15:12

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

Quote:

By comparison, in the USA if you were a citizen, you couldn't even be a slave at all. So, even in that aspect, yeah, the USA did better.

LOL great answer except they forgot to make the slaves living in the US at the time of Independnce citizens. It was until 1868 that even free decendents of slaves had any constitutional right

Quote:

I don't read "a day or two" as "two", but ok, two days. Does it make it less of an atrocity? If I beat someone up and he dies after two days from internal bleeding, would that absolve me of manslaughter in any civilized country? WTH?

Nor was it back then as I have previously pointed out

Quote:

As for the arbitration, I call plain old BS. The text doesn't say that, it says, literally, "no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property". There is no mention of arbitration or judges or anything. Stop making stuff up, basically.

Yeah I made up Deuteronomy 17:18

8"(A)If any case is too difficult for you to decide, between one kind of homicide or another, between one kind of lawsuit or another, and between one kind of assault or another, being cases of dispute in your courts, then you shall arise and go up to (B)the place which the LORD your God chooses. 9"So you shall come to (C)the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them and they will declare to you the verdict in the case.

HansMustermann · 10th July 2009, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Well if he could go to the ATM and get the money in the first place, he would not have been a slave - and you are asking me to do better

Bingo. That was sarcasm. I'm calling plain old BS on your argument that it was any better, because they could just buy themselves free.

Originally Posted by MG1962

How is that a reasonable comparison. If the slave owner chose not to sell the slave....tough. Under Hebrew law, anyone turned up with the money to cover the freedom of the slave, the offer could not be refused

Right, because that's such a great consolation for someone taken in a war where you killed his family and taken him with just the shirt on his back. I'm sure it's such a big comfort for him that theoretically if he had anyone that could buy him back for a lot of money, by Jove, he could be free.

Originally Posted by MG1962

So war retribution has never existed?

War retribution by taking women and children as slaves would be called a "war crime." Look that one up. People were tried at Nuerenberg for that one.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Incorrect - Deuteronomy 15:12

And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

Only if it was a Hebrew man. How bloody hard is that to understand when it's right in the text you quote, for Pete's sake?

You want foreigners? Catch:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

My emphasis, and, really, says it all. Which part of "for life" is confusing you?

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

I.e., not go free. If you're female, tough luck, those limits don't apply to you.

Deuteronomy 20:14: "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"

Yep, taking women and children is just as acceptable as taking cattle.

joobz · 10th July 2009, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Not at all - we are all product of out times and the society we live in.

As mere men, I agree.

Originally Posted by MG1962

I dont see debating the nature of Christ as adding to this debate. We are debating what he said and the context of those comments. Regardless if Jesus is the son of God, or a carpenter with the gift of the gab, it still does not change what he is reported to have said or how that applies to the modern world

Seriously? the nature of christ doesn't factor into this debate? It's the central aspect of this debate.

Christians claim that the greatest known morality ever came from Jesus. That's THE standard that we are talking about. If That's true, then Jesus' views of slavery are not shielded by the "product of our times" argument.

As I said in the beginning.

If christians beleive that Jesus was only a man, then I agree with you.

If christians beleive that he is the eternally perfect god made flesh, than his condoning of biblical slavery represents a problem for the faith.

8th July 2009, 03:37 PM	#1
Questioninggeller Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,551	Slavery part of Christian heritage in the U.S.? Yesterday Representative Steve King (R-IA) was the only member to vote against recognizing history of slave labor in the U.S. capitol. The House of Representatives voted 399-1 for the Capitol Visitors Center to have a plaque acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol. King's reason? Well, its an interesting one. He says it was to protest "a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol". Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers.
	__________________ "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe." --Richard Dawkins

8th July 2009, 05:20 PM	#5
ServiceSoon Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 636	Well, I would have voted no too, but for a different reason.
ServiceSoon Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 636

8th July 2009, 07:48 PM	#7
Questioninggeller Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,551	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Hmm, maybe I'm missing some context there, but I really don't get what he's trying to say there. That quote doesn't even say to me that slavery is part of the christian heritage, but... that acknowledging slavery is somehow an effort to erase the traces of christian heritage. I mean, umm, wth? How? Either I'm missing some context there or right-wing rationalizations get dumber by the day. King's statement, as far as I can tell, has no clear connection to his vote. That is, him complaining of a "liberal" conspiracy and voting against the resolution doesn't make sense unless he thinks its just "liberals" who want to remember slavery and he's opposed to everything "liberals" want in order to protest the liberal conspiracy. On the other hand, slavery, with various justifications such as Biblical ones, is part of the "U.S. Christian heritage." And King wants to remember "Christian heritage."
	__________________ "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe." --Richard Dawkins Last edited by Questioninggeller; 8th July 2009 at 08:14 PM.

8th July 2009, 09:19 PM	#8
Robster, FCD Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 385	Apparently, some visitor center doesn't have enough christian symbology, so he is throwing a fit.
	__________________ Power corrupts... But absolute power is even better! -- unknown If Allopathy is modern medicine, I would say Homoeopathy is post-modern medicine. -- "Dr." Nancy Malik

8th July 2009, 09:33 PM	#9
lightfire22000 Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Nashville, TN. Posts: 689	post deleted
	Last edited by lightfire22000; 8th July 2009 at 09:40 PM.

8th July 2009, 03:44 PM	#2
runnah Student Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Behind the lense Posts: 37	A sixth grader should throw a history book at his face. When I was young I had this notion that politicians were the cream of the crop.

8th July 2009, 04:12 PM	#3
Tricky Radical centrist Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 27,286	It is not just part of the history of the United States, it is part of the history of the land we now call America. One of the things that always gets mentioned in American history books is how the Pilgrims survived a very hard first few years with the aid of a helpful Native American called Tisquantum or Squanto. Here's what the history books rarely tell you. Originally Posted by Wikipedia On his way back to his tribe in 1614, Tisquantum was kidnapped by another Englishman, Thomas Hunt. Hunt was one of John Smith's lieutenants. Hunt was planning to sell fish, corn, and captured slaves in Málaga, Spain. Hunt attempted to sell Tisquantum and a number of other Native Americans into slavery for £20 apiece. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, in A Brief Relation of the Discovery and Plantation of New England (London, 1622) wrote that some local friars, however, discovered what Hunt was attempting and took the remaining Indians, Tisquantum included, in order to instruct them in the Christian faith. It is pretty amazing that Squanto was willing to help these folks after being kidnapped. Stockholm syndrome, I guess.

8th July 2009, 04:36 PM	#4
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,099	Hmm, maybe I'm missing some context there, but I really don't get what he's trying to say there. That quote doesn't even say to me that slavery is part of the christian heritage, but... that acknowledging slavery is somehow an effort to erase the traces of christian heritage. I mean, umm, wth? How? Either I'm missing some context there or right-wing rationalizations get dumber by the day.

8th July 2009, 06:21 PM	#6
Tricky Radical centrist Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 27,286	Maybe I interpreted it wrong, or maybe I was just looking for an excuse to reveal that rather sordid and obscure bit of American history. And maybe Questioninggellar will come back and explain exactly what he/she is asking.

8th July 2009, 09:33 PM	#10
Ducky Titanium Superhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota Posts: 10,769	So to follow in his example: I refuse to vote for any resolution to recognize gooberplathworgals because horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history.

8th July 2009, 09:37 PM	#11
lightfire22000 Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Nashville, TN. Posts: 689	A bit of history and philosophy Originally Posted by Questioninggeller Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers. There's still A christian heritage. It just isn't exclusive. It was founded by people with varying religious views. More interestingly, many of the founders that identified as Christian adhered to theologies that certainly wouldn't be considered Christian by many of today's major churches. Declaration signer Benjamin Rush was one of the biggest advocates of Christianity in public life and in government. However, his theology would probably be considered "universalist" by many of today's self-identified Christian leaders. A country can't have a religion at all. Think about it. How can a company believe something? How can an organization espouse a point of view? Only individuals can have a religion as far as I see. So I wouldn't say it's a secular country since I associate that term with a conscious absence of religion, but I'd say it's just a country. Christianity was indisputably used to not only justify, but to encourage slavery so I don't know why anyone would view a discussion of slavery as anti-Christian. Whether the people who used Christianity to justify slavery sincerely believed they had a religious duty to enslave people is another story. Sorry about the double post.
	Last edited by lightfire22000; 8th July 2009 at 09:40 PM. Reason: Triple post by accident

8th July 2009, 09:38 PM	#12
lightfire22000 Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Nashville, TN. Posts: 689	post deleted
	Last edited by lightfire22000; 8th July 2009 at 09:39 PM.

8th July 2009, 09:39 PM	#13
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 10,131	He's playing to his constituency, which would be.... Lemme guess.... Conservative Christians, perhaps? The bill was going to get passed in a landslide. This was his chance to get some press coverage back home and speak up for Christian Values and all that rot. Politics as usual. ETA: Oooh, wait.... Never mind... I didn't remember him, what with all the attention Iowa gets nowadays. Steve King???? The guy who said that Joe McCarthy is an American hero???? The guy who predicted, about our current President, Quote: "I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Microsoft is NOT the Borg Collective... the Borg have better tech support. Eleri Last edited by Foolmewunz; 8th July 2009 at 09:46 PM.

8th July 2009, 11:31 PM	#14
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by Tricky It is pretty amazing that Squanto was willing to help these folks after being kidnapped. Stockholm syndrome, I guess. At the risk of derailing this thread, I believe the answer was infinately more complex
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

8th July 2009, 11:45 PM	#15
Meadmaker Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 8,113	Originally Posted by Tricky Maybe I interpreted it wrong, or maybe I was just looking for an excuse to reveal that rather sordid and obscure bit of American history. Which I must say is something I, for one, appreciate. If you can't learn useless but entertaining trivia on a forum, it just isn't worth reading. On the subject of the OP, I think Rep. King might have some 'splainin' to do.
	__________________ Dave

8th July 2009, 11:53 PM	#16
Ducky Titanium Superhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota Posts: 10,769	Originally Posted by Ducky So to follow in his example: I refuse to vote for any resolution to recognize gooberplathworgals because horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history. What the hell? Aren't there any gooberplathworgals that are going to protest me for not voting for them because the horsenpheifferschmogletards want to erase pixie dust from history? Apparently gooberplathworgals and horsenpheifferschmogletards alike are just sheeple. I WILL FIGHT! MY CONSTITUENCY CAN COUNT ON ME TO FIGHT THE DAMNED HORSENPHEIFFERSCHMOGLETARDS! TO HELL WITH THE GOOBERPLATHWORGALS! Look, someone just laugh at this please? You know how goddam hard it is to type gooberplathworgals and horsenpheifferschmogletards? Take one for the team and just reply with a lol.

9th July 2009, 02:59 PM	#17
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Posts: 7,838	Quick! Somebody give Ducky the Heimlich!
	__________________ A cheetah coat fills up with steam She's such a scream

9th July 2009, 11:22 PM	#18
autumn1971 Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 622	To be fair, the gentleman from Iowa wanted to voice a (stupid) protest, so he probably selected this bill because it was guaranteed to pass by a huge margin. Sure, he'll lose his district's black vote, but his district probably only has a black vote (howdy, Tom).
autumn1971 Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 622	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

9th July 2009, 11:26 PM	#19
hamelekim Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,134	Originally Posted by Questioninggeller Yesterday Representative Steve King (R-IA) was the only member to vote against recognizing history of slave labor in the U.S. capitol. The House of Representatives voted 399-1 for the Capitol Visitors Center to have a plaque acknowledging the role of slave labor in the construction of the Capitol. King's reason? Well, its an interesting one. He says it was to protest "a several year effort by liberals in Congress to scrub references to America's Christian heritage from our nation's Capitol". Someone, perhaps a history book or a six grader, should inform him that the U.S. is a secular country, founded by believers AND non-believers. Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't make them a Christian, just as calling yourself a Doctor doesn't make you a doctor without the education and degrees. But yes, I thought it was rather hypocritical of him to deny slavery but he wants to acknowledge Christian heritage of the US.

10th July 2009, 08:36 AM	#20
Questioninggeller Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,551	Originally Posted by hamelekim Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition. Christian belief includes the Old Testament, which is full of justifications/glorification of slavery. Originally Posted by hamelekim Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't make them a Christian, just as calling yourself a Doctor doesn't make you a doctor without the education and degrees. Formal education and its clear cut requirement, and religion are not the same thing. If someone says the believe in the Christian religion and we have records of them saying/practicing that then there is no reason to doubt it. What "makes" someone a Christian?
	__________________ "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe." --Richard Dawkins

10th July 2009, 08:41 AM	#21
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,812	Originally Posted by hamelekim Don't associate Jesus with slavery. That is a solely human condition. Then why does Jesus use Slavery as an example for teaching morality and for describing our relationship with him. Can you show passages in the bible where Jesus condemns slavery? Jesus, as described in the bible, wasn't too concerned about slavery.
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC "Hopefully joobz can one day be totally objective and unbiased ..." - DOC

10th July 2009, 08:50 AM	#22
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by joobz Jesus, as described in the bible, wasn't too concerned about slavery. Why would he be?
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

10th July 2009, 08:52 AM	#23
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,812	Originally Posted by MG1962 Why would he be? If he was merely a man, he wouldn't be. If he was god incarnate, he should have been.
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC "Hopefully joobz can one day be totally objective and unbiased ..." - DOC

10th July 2009, 08:55 AM	#24
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by joobz If he was merely a man, he wouldn't be. If he was god incarnate, he should have been. Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered.
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

10th July 2009, 09:02 AM	#25
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,812	Originally Posted by MG1962 Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered. Yes, I do. That's a classic apologist attempt at trying to minimize the issue. Please explain why partial ownership of a person is acceptable by god's standard. Please show why this makes it "ok" for slavery to be condoned in the bible. Let's state it another way: If god is ok with slavery (in any of its forms), then god is immoral and not worthy of worship. ETA: What about the parable where jesus explains that it's ok to beat a slave for violating a rule that he was unaware of (provided that the master would punish the slave who knowingly violated a rule more severely)?
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC "Hopefully joobz can one day be totally objective and unbiased ..." - DOC Last edited by joobz; 10th July 2009 at 09:04 AM.

10th July 2009, 09:46 AM	#26
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by joobz Yes, I do. That's a classic apologist attempt at trying to minimize the issue. Please explain why partial ownership of a person is acceptable by god's standard. Please show why this makes it "ok" for slavery to be condoned in the bible. How so, if you agree the modern meaning of the word is not the same as as used in the OT - why do I have to defend a contextual arguement that you agree does not exist Quote: Let's state it another way: If god is ok with slavery (in any of its forms), then god is immoral and not worthy of worship. Being gay in 1895 meant something completely different to being gay in 2005 - Is it immoral to condem the original meaning of the word because of a modern evolution in meaning? Quote: ETA: What about the parable where jesus explains that it's ok to beat a slave for violating a rule that he was unaware of (provided that the master would punish the slave who knowingly violated a rule more severely)? Could you point out that particular verse?
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

10th July 2009, 09:50 AM	#27
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,099	Originally Posted by MG1962 Why?. You do realise that slavery under the Mosaic code was different to what African Americans suffered. Oh, you mean the kind of OT slavery where according to God it was OK to beat a slave savagely, just as long as it's not to death? With the clause that if it doesn't die on the same day, then, wth, it wasn't from the beating and you're good to go? See: Exodus 21:20-21. Oh, or you mean that male Hebrew slaves had to be freed on the 7'th year? Well, that's fine and dandy, but foreign slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46) or female slaves (Exodus 21:7) didn't have to be freed, ever. Oh, and Exodus 21:3-4 is just _precious_ about freeing those Hebrew slaves: "f he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 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." You know, you can go if you want to, but you must leave your wife and children behind in slavery. Oops, it still wouldn't have been a better situation for those African-Americans if it were by old Hebrew law after all. Oh, and if someone rapes a female slave who was engaged to someone else? She shall be scourged, and he gets to redeem himself by sacrificing at the temple. She shall not be killed for it because she wasn't free. (Leviticus 19:20-21) (Aww, gee, isn't that generous. You got raped, but we won't kill you for it.) No mention of any punishment exists for raping a female slave who wasn't engaged to someone else. Were those fair game? Actually, wait, those _were_ fair game: - Deuteronomy 21:10-14: basically, when you go to war, you can take a woman as a slave if you lust for her, shave her head, let her mourn her family for a month (wouldn't want to be inhuman there or anything), then go rape her. (More literally, go make her your wife... whether she wants it or not.) And if you find that she's no good in bed and you don't want more of that, just let her go. You can't sell her for money any more, 'cause, you know, you "humbled" her. (Aw, gee, isn't it just precious that the punishment for the guy who killed your family and raped you, is that he can't also sell you into slavery?) - Genesis 16:1-2, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9-10: The same thing repeated 3 times by 3 different people. So I'm guessing it must have been a common or generally accepted thing to do. Basically, "Behold, I can't seem to get pregnant so go bone the maid and leave her pregnant, and we'll call the result our child by proxy." I'm so sure that the slave maid properly appreciated the honour about to be bestowed on her.

10th July 2009, 09:57 AM	#28
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,812	Originally Posted by MG1962 How so, if you agree the modern meaning of the word is not the same as as used in the OT - why do I have to defend a contextual arguement that you agree does not exist Because god isn't temporally bound. If you wish to claim that Jesus was simply a man of his time, than you have no argument from me. But the moment we pretend that Jesus is god incarnate, he is no longer bound by that same limitation. Originally Posted by MG1962 Being gay in 1895 meant something completely different to being gay in 2005 - Is it immoral to condem the original meaning of the word because of a modern evolution in meaning? That's a rather fallacious comparison. We aren't speaking of a change in word definition, we are speaking of a concept: Slavery. If you think that the slavery of the bible isn't a big deal, then explain why. Originally Posted by MG1962 Could you point out that particular verse? Luke 12:47-48 " 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC "Hopefully joobz can one day be totally objective and unbiased ..." - DOC

10th July 2009, 10:13 AM	#29
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Oh, you mean the kind of OT slavery where according to God it was OK to beat a slave savagely, just as long as it's not to death? With the clause that if it doesn't die on the same day, then, wth, it wasn't from the beating and you're good to go? Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time. The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property. Or the fixed term of the slavery. Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US. The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

10th July 2009, 10:19 AM	#30
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,812	Originally Posted by MG1962 Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time. The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property. Or the fixed term of the slavery. Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave ...the slavery that allows a person to become a slave as a punishment for loosing a war... The slavery that makes killing a slave legal (provided the slave doesn't die within three days of the blow)... The slavery that makes a person OWN another... Originally Posted by MG1962 Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US. I don't need to. I am not merely talking about modern slavery but both forms. I find both to be immoral. let's pretend that Jesus is ok with one and not the other... Are you ok with that? Is that an acceptable form of morality for a benevolent god? Originally Posted by MG1962 The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause You're ok with this? This is the kind of slavery that you're ok with god condoning?
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC "Hopefully joobz can one day be totally objective and unbiased ..." - DOC Last edited by joobz; 10th July 2009 at 10:20 AM.

10th July 2009, 10:26 AM	#31
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by joobz That's a rather fallacious comparison. We aren't speaking of a change in word definition, we are speaking of a concept: Slavery. Absoultely not - slavery in the OT was a punishment for a crime, or injustice to a person. It had defined period, get out clause, and instructions about what was acceptable and not acceptable. Convicts brought to Australia to work as forced labor had even less rights than their Jewish counterparts, but were never considered slaves. To compare either case to slavery to the New World or even the dreadful modern day slave trading is simply without foundation. Quote: If you think that the slavery of the bible isn't a big deal, then explain why. I dont make judgements of societies I have no contextual relevance to Quote: Luke 12:47-48 " 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." I am not sure I see how that passage advances your arguement. There are certain things a slave should know they cant do, regardless if they have been specifically told or not - example burning down the house, stealing money etc etc
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

10th July 2009, 10:29 AM	#32
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by joobz I don't need to. I am not merely talking about modern slavery but both forms. I find both to be immoral. Then you are promoting the abolishion of all penal institutions, especially those that have a labour component to the prison term?
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

10th July 2009, 10:31 AM	#33
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by joobz You're ok with this? This is the kind of slavery that you're ok with god condoning? Condoning what, that a master can still be punished if the beating is the cause of death. But not punishing the master if the slave dies of old age two days after the beating
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

10th July 2009, 10:32 AM	#34
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Inside the Magical Murder Bag Posts: 11,812	Originally Posted by MG1962 Absoultely not - slavery in the OT was a punishment for a crime, or injustice to a person. not exclusively. You can have a slave as part of a battle. Originally Posted by MG1962 It had defined period, get out clause, and instructions about what was acceptable and not acceptable. So, you think it's ok that Jesus condones this kind of slavery? you are free to beleive so, I simply say that such a view is hardly indicative of a divine noble morality. Originally Posted by MG1962 I dont make judgements of societies I have no contextual relevance to That's a cop out. If you are merely arguing for the sake of arguing, that's fine. But If you are attempting to excuse Jesus' condoning of slavery that's another thing. I've noticed you keep avoiding this issue. Originally Posted by MG1962 I am not sure I see how that passage advances your arguement. There are certain things a slave should know they cant do, regardless if they have been specifically told or not - example burning down the house, stealing money etc etc There's no mention on the reasonableness of the rules. Merely that if a slave breaks a rule, you can beat him (physically). That's the merciful and just will of god.
	__________________ "Joobz you can be something else sometimes."- DOC "Hopefully joobz can one day be totally objective and unbiased ..." - DOC

10th July 2009, 10:35 AM	#35
HansMustermann Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,099	Originally Posted by MG1962 Oh you are talking about the slavery that allows a slave to buy their freedom at any time. Oh yes, because someone who's a slave without an income beyond the bare-subsistence-level meal he gets, is so going to just go to the ATM and buy himself free. That's such a poor excuse, I'm sure you can do better. And technically the blacks in the USA could buy themselves free by proxy. There are a lot of blacks who appear on historical records as owning other blacks, because they basically bought them and freed them. (But most still were registered as slaves as a tax dodge.) Originally Posted by MG1962 The slavery that was used as a punishment for debt or restitution of damage to a persons property. Bzzt. Just plain old false. Taking slaves in war is encouraged all over the place, even (or especially) from the non-combatant women and _children_ of those neighbouring nation. Sorry, but being a child in a nation that got attacked, does not constitute punishment for debt or damage to property. Those hadn't caused any damage to anyone in the invading army. Originally Posted by MG1962 Or the fixed term of the slavery. Did you even bother _reading_ those verses I supplied as reference? The fixed term was only for male Jews. Women or foreigners were to be held slaves for _life_ and inherited by your heirs. Originally Posted by MG1962 Or the slavery that said once a term was complete, they had to be supplied with food grain and wine when they leave Again, only if the slave was a male Jew. For anyone else, even for the woman taken and raped in that war, you didn't have to give them jack squat. Originally Posted by MG1962 Could you point out some historical examples of such behaviour duing the slave period of the US. Considering that they didn't apply to foreigners taken as slaves in the OT either, why? All those restrictions on slavery were only for Hebrew male citizens. Period. By comparison, in the USA if you were a citizen, you couldn't even be a slave at all. So, even in that aspect, yeah, the USA did better. Originally Posted by MG1962 The example you suggest - is actually two days. And if a case could be presented that the slave died from the beating, it was still refered to the judges for arbitration of cause "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." I don't read "a day or two" as "two", but ok, two days. Does it make it less of an atrocity? If I beat someone up and he dies after two days from internal bleeding, would that absolve me of manslaughter in any civilized country? WTH? As for the arbitration, I call plain old BS. The text doesn't say that, it says, literally, "no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property". There is no mention of arbitration or judges or anything. Stop making stuff up, basically.