(July 30, 2021 at 6:46 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: I love all the moral grandstanding while you reap the benefits of a country built by slavery, I'm a literal descendant of slaves from Mississippi, my father was sharecropper and picked cotton as a child, my last name 'McGowan' is a slave name... I'm a piece of shit? Why? 

I consider anyone who personally endorses slavery a piece of shit.  I don't care f they do it because they're good old boys, or because they feel insecure in their religious beliefs about a magic book.

Further, you're a piece of shit for asking as though you didn't already know. You put in the work. Enjoy.

(August 2, 2021 at 12:04 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(July 30, 2021 at 6:46 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: I love all the moral grandstanding while you reap the benefits of a country built by slavery, I'm a literal descendant of slaves from Mississippi, my father was sharecropper and picked cotton as a child, my last name 'McGowan' is a slave name... I'm a piece of shit? Why? 

I consider anyone who personally endorses slavery a piece of shit.  I don't care f they do it because they're good old boys, or because they feel insecure in their religious beliefs about a magic book.

Further, you're a piece of shit for asking as though you didn't already know.  You put in the work.  Enjoy.

Again, I made a clear distinction between 'indentured servitude' and 'slavery'. you know that but you seem to want to double down in your dishonesty...

Since YOU apparently think they are one and the same, explain this contradiction.

(July 27, 2021 at 7:34 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(July 27, 2021 at 7:28 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: Because we're not talking about "slavery" we're talking about indentured  servitude, which literally every society has, and to some extent still has. The most common reason for someone to go into servitude was debt, do you think there is any difference to that and say, someone getting thier pay garnished when they can't pay thier bills?

Indentured servitude is illegal, and unethical.  You can’t possibly imagine that bad human actors doing a thing gets a god off the hook for endorsing it anymore than you could believe finding a hypocritical human would change the fact that god endorsed some horrid thing?

The Christian god is and was a slaver.  That’s no one and no societies problem.  That’s your gods problem.  Perhaps it wouldn’t have been quite the problem it has been for the world had good and godly people not been able to stamp slavery with the approval of the divine?

-and….yes, there is a difference between wage garnishment and slavery.  What the actual fuck?

*emphasis mine*

(June 19, 2015 at 11:41 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: When I went through it, it was simple, I got divorced in Massachusetts......so I knew I would spend the rest of my life as an indentured servant under constant threat of imprisonment.  They told me they'd take up to 33% of my pay, unless I was late, and then it could increase to 66%..-before taxes- and that this would continue until my daughter was 24 years old, provided she went to college, which they would also collect on her behalf for.....in addition to any medical fees.  They could, at any time, increase my commitment, but I would have to appear in court and demonstrate a minimum of a 25% reduction in  income before they entertain the idea of a reduction.

*emphasis mine*

So there is a difference between wage garnishment and slavery... unless it's YOUR ass being garnished.

You're a straight clown

You've made whatever you wish clear, and the clear picture which emerged which you have twice endorsed in thread is still slavery, still illegal, still unethical.

Here, try this, I think anyone who endorses indentured servitude, as it is, as it was, or your own novel use of the term, is a piece of shit. They're all wrong for the same reason, and anyone who endorses any of them is getting the same thing wrong. Christanity would be in a poor spot moving forward in the world if it were as difficult for other believers as it has been for you to separate their religions from their garbage takes on labor exploitation.

It's pointless to try and argue me out of my position on labor exploitation, or to find some other garbage take on some other thing with which to mount a doomed argument from hypocrisy. It's pointless to talk about how you're descended from slaves, or to complain about moral grandstanding. The question has been asked and answered. Does christianity support slavery? Well, some peoples' christianity certainly does, they see no way around it or without it, and feel compelled to extoll it's virtues or make excuses for it - as predicted on page one. Other people think those people and their christianity are shit.

(August 2, 2021 at 2:46 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You've made whatever you wish clear, and the clear picture which emerged which you have twice endorsed in thread is still slavery, still illegal, still unethical.  

Here, try this, I think anyone who endorses indentured servitude, as it is, as it was, or your own novel use of the term, is a piece of shit.  They're all wrong for the same reason, and anyone who endorses any of them is getting the same thing wrong.  Christanity would be in a poor spot moving forward in the world if it were as difficult for other believers as it has been for you to separate their religions from their garbage takes on labor exploitation.

It's pointless to try and argue me out of my position on labor exploitation, or to find some other garbage take on some other thing with which to mount a doomed argument from hypocrisy.  It's pointless to talk about how you're descended from slaves, or to complain about moral grandstanding.  The question has been asked and answered.  Does christianity support slavery?  Well, some peoples' christianity certainly does, they see no way around it or without it, and feel compelled to extoll it's virtues or make excuses for it - as predicted on page one.  Other people think those people and their christianity are shit.

I dunno man you seem to be talking out both side of your neck, how can indentured servitude be illegal and unethical if you claim to have experienced it through the American judicial system? Your words, not mine.

(June 19, 2015 at 11:41 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I knew I would spend the rest of my life as an indentured servant under constant threat of imprisonment.

As we both know, our laws are perfect, without exception. Theres absolutely nothing in any of them that either of us or any reasonable person might disagree with.

Or, you're a cretin floundering for a way to excuse your decision to be a piece of shit by botching a simple test of human decency. Same test your god botched, apparently. Do you think that it might be...idk...bad...that there are exceptions to our bans on slavery and servitude? Does it strike you as odd that those exceptions are used, regularly, to perpetuate the same states of affairs amongst the same groups of people who were formerly enslaved and formerly servants?

More broadly, lets ignore how idiotic the above was on it's face and ask a fundamental question. What would a person who actually was "talking out of both sides of their neck" have to do with whether a god ordered and endorsed slavery? A tq isn't a defense, even when the nutball using it get's the particulars entirely wrong. It's an admission of guilt, that's what makes it pointless, as we've already discussed.

Line up all of human folly and wrong, and the god you believe in still endorses slavery, just as you do.

(August 3, 2021 at 8:47 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: As we both know, our laws are perfect, without exception.  Theres absolutely nothing in any of them that either of us or any reasonable person might disagree with.

Or, you're a cretin floundering for a way to excuse your decision to be a piece of shit by botching a simple test of human decency.  Same test your god botched, apparently.  Do you think that it might be...idk...bad...that there are exceptions to our bans on slavery and servitude?  Does it strike you as odd that those exceptions are used, regularly, to perpetuate the same states of affairs amongst the same groups of people who were formerly enslaved and formerly servants?  

More broadly, lets ignore how idiotic the above was on it's face and ask a fundamental question.  What would a person who actually was "talking out of both sides of their neck" have to do with whether a god ordered and endorsed slavery?  A tq isn't a defense, even when the nutball using it get's the particulars entirely wrong.   It's an admission of guilt, that's what makes it pointless, as we've already discussed.

Line up all of human folly and wrong, and the god you believe in still endorses slavery, just as you do.

First things first, seeing how your whole argument is based on me "endorsing" slavery, provide a quote of where I "endorsed" it.

(August 1, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(July 30, 2021 at 2:18 pm)tackattack Wrote: OK..........

OK

Nice try to bury the issue under a huuuuuuge pile of horseshit.
Now given ALL the context you want (and seemingly need), dont post that wall of BS again, plz, make out of it what you want but WHAT DOES YOUR GOD WANT TO SAY WITH THESE VERSES WITHIN THE GIVEN CONTEXT....take your time and respond, to those verses, no walls of text no dissertations....just your conclusions: WHAT DOES HE SAY HERE (or better: what does the bible claims he said here)?

And no, NOONE said god orders people they SHOULD have slaves, but what does he do here?

Quote:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have (B), shall be(A) of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye(a) buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you(B), of them shall ye(A) buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them(A) as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever(B): but over your brethren the children of Israel(B), ye shall not(A) rule one over another with rigour.

That's why I put it in hide tags. Sorry if bringing context and a thorough exegesis ruffled you the wrong way. If you fully admit that no one says that God should have slaves, then you're being disingenuous to ask. If you're freely admitting that the Bible does not ask people to own slaves then you already have your answer as to what this says and I agree with it. 

To be succinct the verses here are pretty simply if you have slaves do XYZ in their treatment, and if you buy slaves buy them from Tommy across down. 

If the Bible doesn't prescribe people to buy slaves and it does prohibit some instances of slavery and talks about when to free slaves, then it does not support/endorse slavery, IMO. It may be prescriptive on what to do if you find yourself owning slaves (or prisoners of war or those slave's kids) and how to treat them, but the Bible prescribes all sorts of behaviors on how to treat people. That's kind of what it does.



@The Grand Nudger Who you classify me with is fairly irrelevant most of the time although I appreciate any regard I get on this forum from just about anyone. I have limited reading and response time so I typically only spend time responding and replying mostly to atheists. You feel Magic book certainly and inarguably supports the ingrained contempt of all women. I disagree, and as you said I don't believe that. There is probably some societal biases that can be interpreted, but I do not feel the entirety of the Bible shows contempt for all women. I believe it does prescribe certain behaviors for people (including women). That might make women feel they're being controlled or oppressed, which is likely the root of this issue or near it. I've seen you label Paul as an asshole, so let's start there. "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." This and the number of greetings and praises to believing women in Romans 16 I don't see how anyone could hold that view. Please enlighten me on the ingrained contempt for all women.

(August 3, 2021 at 11:14 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: First things first, seeing how your whole argument is based on me "endorsing" slavery, provide a quote of where I "endorsed" it.

My argument doesn't have anything to do with you being a slavery endorsing nutter - you've got the order of dependence backwards.

You are a slavery endorsing nutter because of the deep and genuine belief in a christian religion you hold.  My first response in thread:

Quote:It certainly is, all but ensuring that some very committed people end up saying abhorrent things for no reason beyond their genuinely held faith. Things they personally struggle with, but feel compelled to accept nevertheless.

Small number. Like any christian thing, the vast majority ignore the vast majority of things. That's one of the religions pros, incidentally. Nobody wants christians acting too christian in the real world, especially christians.

-you're a member of that small number, apparently.  Here's to hoping it doesn't grow larger.

@tackattack Paul labeled himself an asshole, I merely noticed it. You're only telling me that you can't imagine how paul could be paul as paul tells it. I can clear that up for you. People are full of contradictions. Even people who only exist as literary devices. You, as an actual person with contemporary ethics, probably know when to disagree with paul the man or paul the literary device. We will not be discussing any doomed objections about contempt not being contempt, or you not having eyes to see contempt. As I mentioned before, the authors of all of magic book believed shit you don't. Let;s not insults ourselves, each other, or the members of this board by pretending otherwise. Which of these pauls do you follow?

Quote:There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Quote:Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

-Also Paul

Quote:As in all the congregations of the Lord's people. Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

-Also Paul.

Quote:I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

-Also Paul

Allow me to suggest that christianity is as inherently misogynistic as any plain reading of the text manifestly demonstrates it to be. Still.... you, as a contemporary christian, may omit or prioritize one aspect over another - but we can be clear about what we're doing in that event. Applying our contemporary ethics to repair that fault in magic book, repair the god of magic book. I don't expect you to shrug your shoulders and say "well, god said to take all the virgin girls and paul said that a bitch should be quiet - so I guess that's how things are and should be!".

As a sidenote - because you might find this interesting - it's entirely certain that the quote you chose to focus on was a re-expression of the ancient isrealite concept of why they personally couldn't be enslaved. They were all already slaves, equally, before god- and thus could not be purchased by another. Christian society would go on to become a slaving society contemptuous of women, for entirely predictable reasons. We have our model minority, they had their model slave. We have our impossible standard, they had their female possessions.

Broadly speaking, christianity is inherently contemptuous of life - for thematic reasons - so it hardly makes sense to split hairs over which color or sex. People are broken and the world is fallen.


-Further, because I cannot stand to see this keep getting floated.

Quote:If the Bible doesn't prescribe people to buy slaves and it does prohibit some instances of slavery and talks about when to free slaves, then it does not support/endorse slavery, IMO.

It tells them to go out and capture them by force, and it tells them where they can buy them, and it tells them how to turn even the marginally protected in-group into them. The people commanded to go get slaves did not simply "find themselves owning slaves". A person who exploits the progeny exception is breeding..not finding, slaves. A trader going out to a foreign country to purchase human beings didn't just wake up and say "holy shit, look at all these people that found their way into my pocket!". The idea that it tells anyone to free any slaves is a figment of a contemporary readers imagination.

Since it does those things you specifically mention, there must be some other criteria which you've decided the issue by.

(August 3, 2021 at 2:47 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(August 3, 2021 at 11:14 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: First things first, seeing how your whole argument is based on me "endorsing" slavery, provide a quote of where I "endorsed" it.

My argument doesn't have anything to do with you being a slavery endorsing nutter - you've got the order of dependence backwards.

You are a slavery endorsing nutter because of the deep and genuine belief in a christian religion you hold.  My first response in thread:

You claim I endorsed slavery.

(August 2, 2021 at 2:46 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You've made whatever you wish clear, and the clear picture which emerged which you have twice endorsed in thread is still slavery, still illegal, still unethical.

*emphasis mine*
Post the quote.

(August 3, 2021 at 11:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(August 1, 2021 at 1:02 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: OK

Nice try to bury the issue under a huuuuuuge pile of horseshit.
Now given ALL the context you want (and seemingly need), dont post that wall of BS again, plz, make out of it what you want but WHAT DOES YOUR GOD WANT TO SAY WITH THESE VERSES WITHIN THE GIVEN CONTEXT....take your time and respond, to those verses, no walls of text no dissertations....just your conclusions: WHAT DOES HE SAY HERE (or better: what does the bible claims he said here)?

And no, NOONE said god orders people they SHOULD have slaves, but what does he do here?

That's why I put it in hide tags. Sorry if bringing context and a thorough exegesis ruffled you the wrong way. If you fully admit that no one says that God should have slaves, then you're being disingenuous to ask. If you're freely admitting that the Bible does not ask people to own slaves then you already have your answer as to what this says and I agree with it. 

I am not dishonest. You are if you suggest i ever said that your god commanded the israelites to have some slves (in case the already didnt). Stop making that insinuation or provide a quote.
I am just asking you what the bible claims your god is trying to say with the verses i presented multiple times now. I grant you all the context you need,

(August 3, 2021 at 11:38 am)tackattack Wrote: To be succinct the verses here are pretty simply if you have slaves do XYZ in their treatment, and if you buy slaves buy them from Tommy across down. 

Ok, here we finally go. Your god tells people "how to do slavery", right? But he doesnt even tell them "IF you buy them from Tommy across", he tells them to DO buy them from Tommy across", right?

Quote:Leviticus 25: 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Ye "shall" buy them from Tommy across, right?

(August 3, 2021 at 11:38 am)tackattack Wrote: If the Bible doesn't prescribe people to buy slaves and it does prohibit some instances of slavery and talks about when to free slaves, then it does not support/endorse slavery, IMO.

Just listen to yourself speaking: IF the bible prohibits SOME instances of slavery..., then it does not support slavery. Are.you.serious.!?
Let me ask you: IF the bible prohibits SOME instances of slavery, then it does NOT prohibit some OTHER instances of slavery, right?
THE BIBLE DOES NOT PROHIBIT SOME INSTANCES OF SLAVERY, according to your own words. (No it does tell HOW to do it in those instances).
Question: What does person x do if it supports SOME instances of activity y? Does that mean person x does NOT support activity y AT ALL?

You are still trying to weasel out of the fact, that the bible, while not TELLING people to enslave (nice strawman btw 1/10 for trying), while (maybe) not endorsing SOME instances of slavery (nice try 2/10 maybe for effort), it does endorse SOME instancs of slavery.

Do you consider it morally permissible to endorse SOME instances of slavery?

(August 3, 2021 at 11:38 am)tackattack Wrote: It may be prescriptive on what to do if you find yourself owning slaves (or prisoners of war or those slave's kids) and how to treat them, but the Bible prescribes all sorts of behaviors on how to treat people. That's kind of what it does.

Are.you.serious.again?
Is your argument really "Hey, the bible tells people HOW to enslave, but it tells them HOW to do other stuff as well."
Oh, and how do you "find yourself owning slaves"? Is this stuff happening accidentally, or as a minor "byproduct" of some other activity?