(July 10, 2012 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 10, 2012 at 2:33 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: 1) I was under the impression that proselytizing was not allowed in this forum.

Nothing said wasn't solicited a poster.

What I cited solicited Annik specifically and all of us in general. You are proselytizing.

Quote:You want to know why Slavery is not 'all bad' in the context of the bible? Well it has to do with salvation.

The slavery in the text I cited was not allegory. It was, for example, the case of a man actually selling his daughter into slavery. In the words of your fairy tale monster.

Quote:

Quote:2) YOU MYTHICAL GOD FIGURE REFERENCES THE CASE OF A MAN SELLING HIS DAUGHTER INTO SLAVERY IN THE MATERIAL I QUOTED. This is not indentured servitude. You cannot dodge this with euivocal prestidigitation.

But I can point to the reason for the slavery was not for the expressed purpose as a sex toy, as you would have everyone believe. For unattached unsanctioned sex was still a sin. Marriage was the reason for 'barter.' Something that still goes on today between certain families Today.

Strawman much? I said nothing of "sex toys". The babble text, attributed directly to your fairy tale monster, cites a father selling his daughter as a servant, rather than a concubine.

Quote:“Exodus 21:7 If a man sells his daughter as a servant,...

Other parts also seem to refer to concubines, but that is not the only role, as you would have everyone believe. In any case, selling a daughter as a prostitute is an equally abominable custom that your fairy tale also sanctions through its god-character. Selling a person AT ALL into slavery is an abomination. And AGAIN, your claim that this referred to indentured servants, who freely and willingly enter into servitude through a contract is straight-up bullshit.

---

(July 10, 2012 at 2:06 am)Drich Wrote: Are you employed?

I thought that deceit was the method of your devil figure.

Any of us who are employed can leave that employment at any time. You are throwing out red herrings and grabbing at straws.

I have nothing constructive to add, so I'll just say this: Drich, you're a sick person and a fucking idiot.

Quote:remember Slavery in the OT is not what was being labeled as Slavery in America.
(Despite how some wish to trivialize and dismiss The Recorded Law of the OT Jew, and Historical facts about Pre civil war America.)
So why is biblically based slavery not always bad? Because, Biblically based slavery establishes the paradigm between believer and our Lord and Master. To understand How OT Jews were to treat their slaves is to understand how to balance this life with what is expected of us, Verses how it is we have been freed. Otherwise if you simply say all slavery is bad, then you simply give up one master for another (who's more oppressive than the last/Sin for Legalistic Religions of Man. Which have little to do with God.)

We are slaves to sin. the Majority of you who have any Christian experience i would say that ALL Slavery is Bad all of the time. Yet you only know of an oppressive God who's yoke is more oppressive than the sin you believe you can control. But the opposite is true. Because you believe that all Slavery is always bad none of you have learn to submit as a (OT) slave to God. It is only as a slave (God's definition of the word, not ours) that we will ever know true freedom. But because we are a slave to sin (and do not know it) we can only see the oppression of the religions that choose to represent God, and think they are one in the same. Why? Because we have taught ourselves to cast off all Masters, and by doings so have sold ourselves into true slavery.(But because you do not know what true slavery is you can not identify it) If you can not identify it you can not free yourself from it/sin (If you believe this to be false try living one day without sin) and you can not turn to God for help because you have mis identified Him as a Oppressive Master. Thus dooming you for an eternity, simply because you have closed your mind to a single word and it's true meaning.

Drich, you are mixing several separate concepts in the Bible. I also suspect that you are doing this on purpose to confuse people and also as an opportunity to preach to people.

First, the statement "of slaves to sin alive in Christ" is an analogy used to explain a theological concept - that's all. We on this thread are not talking about that analogy and theological concept and you know this. We on this thread are talking about the physical practice of slavery, how this physical practice was condoned in the Bible, and how human beings have morally evolved to a point where we now know that the practice of slavery is wrong. I expect in the future that you drop your attempts to confuse these ideas.

Second, as I said before, I am familiar with the spiel about how slavery was ok in the Bible because it was different from the slavery that was practiced in the southern states of the U.S. before abolition. I also said it was a bullshit argument from bullshit apologetics invented to make the bullshit in the Bible relevant to today's morality. I gave brief reason why it was a bullshit argument. Your response to this was to dance around the issues and to also repeat the same bullshit idea as if no one had previously corrected you. Are you afraid to address the issue? Let me get into this issue in a bit more detail (though this shouldn't be necessary, the comments from the other members should have been sufficent).

The moral argument: though slavery exists today it doesn't make it right. Though some aspect of slavery, like for example being forced to work a dead end job, exist today it doesn't make it right. Wrong things are still wrong things.

The argument that slavery wasn't as bad as slavery as that practiced in the Southern U.S. before abolition. For those who aren't aware of the argument it essentially goes along the lines that slavery was somewhat equivalent to a below minimum wage job. They cite the barter system. Slaves were "paid" in food, clothing, shelter, and sometimes a little something more than that -the things that a below minimum wage job could buy. The buying and selling of slaves (as the theological argument goes, please don't think I agree with this bullshit) back then was equivalant of a work contract. There were some negatives to how the "contract" bound people to certain responsibilities but there was also positives in that it provided security for both (again please don't think I agree with this shit). There were rules about how slaves were to be treated (beating them and whatnot). Southern slave owners disobeyed these rules by the savage treatment of their slaves. Biblical slavery wasn't supposed to be like this, blah blah blah. I could go on a point by point argument about this but that would take too long. To shorten things up I will point out that to believe the argument that the daily conditions of slavery (as to how they were treated) were so different from the situation that happened in the Southern U.S. that these two things can be treated as a different, one must cherry pick the Bible. Things were marginally better. But still the Bible condones mistreatment that would be considered horribly unacceptable by our morally evolved standards. As for sex slavery, I'd say that it's a fair argument to say that married women were sex slaves also. They were bought and sold like a commodity against their will. They were considered property and the product they produced (children) were also considered, by Biblical law, as property. I say that the marginal rights a woman got from marriage vs the conditions of a sex slave do not change anything. Both fall under the definition of sex slavery.

The argument from the context of time. It matters not that most people had to work hard every day just to survive and that starvation was a real threat back then. The setting does not make slavery any less slavery. It does not change the definition of slavery. We are talking about the value of human lives and what intrinsic rights a human ought to have. Similarly you could say that the world back then was brutal. You could say "what difference does it make to the average individual if he gets beaten because of _____ verses he gets beaten due to permissions in the slave contract?" I say who cares, if it's wrong to beat someone it's wrong to beat someone. More importantly a contract that allows you to legally beat someone is still wrong. The Bible should not condone such things.

(July 10, 2012 at 2:06 am)Drich Wrote: May I suggest that you read what you are arguing against before you look any more foolish than you already do. For a slave is not always a man who has his life stolen. Men in those days sold themselves into slavery as a way to earn title, Lands, Commodities, live stock, Protection from outsiders, for themselves and their family.

What you describe is indentured servitude. That arrangement was entered into willingly and freely and contractually. We are talking about slaves. For example, a father selling his daughter, which is specifically mentioned by the god-character in the text I quoted. Whom do you serve? Deceit is the craft of your devil. ""You who are full of every kind of craftiness and unscrupulous cunning--you son of the Devil and foe to all that is right"

Quote:I am one generation removed from the Modern understanding of the term.

Nobody gives a fuck, and I for one don't believe you. And if your sad little story were true, then you would be colossally stupid to condone it now, either personally through defense of your fairy-tale god-character, after that. You sow shame upon your ancestors. You deserve to never look them in the eye.

---

(July 10, 2012 at 11:21 am)Ziploc Surprise Wrote:

Quote:The argument that slavery wasn't as bad as slavery as that practiced in the Southern U.S. before abolition. For those who aren't aware of the argument it essentially goes along the lines that slavery was somewhat equivalent to a below minimum wage job. They cite the barter system. Slaves were "paid" in food, clothing, shelter, and sometimes a little something more than that -the things that a below minimum wage job could buy. The buying and selling of slaves (as the theological argument goes, please don't think I agree with this bullshit) back then was equivalant of a work contract.

D-Reck, I would clarify, is attempting to equivocate slavery with the custom of indentured servitude, which as voluntary and an entirely different animal. A man entering a contractual period of service with a patron is nothing like a daughter being sold to a family as a servant or to a man as a concubine or potential wife. D-Reck KNOWS THIS, and he is intentionally and disingenuously throwing out the case of indentured servants as a red herring.

---

[quote='Ziploc Surprise' pid='308383' dateline='1341933710']
Though some aspect of slavery, like for example being forced to work a dead end job,

But that is not slavery. A person working a dead-end job can quit at any time. It may not benefit them, but they are free to do so. D-reck's allusion to shit sort of situation is another red herring.

(July 10, 2012 at 2:06 am)Drich Wrote: I know you can read otherwise how could you respond. So that either means you did not read the OT definition of a slave, or you simply are not able to comprehend or will not accept a definition of a slave that contradicts what you understand a slave to be.

You know, you're right. I can't accept the definition of a slave. You want to know why? It's so fundamentally against the basest of human rights that I can't even stomach the thought. No wonder you're so easy to shut down the rights of others.

Quote: May I suggest that you read what you are arguing against before you look any more foolish than you already do. For a slave is not always a man who has his life stolen. Men in those days sold themselves into slavery as a way to earn title, Lands, Commodities, live stock, Protection from outsiders, for themselves and their family. It was the only way a society had to compensate the lower classes for services rendered when coinage or a universal standard currency was scarce or simply not available. Slavery was a binding contract between a slave and a rich man. The slave sold years of service as a way to trade for things he did not have, or could not provide for his family.

Might I suggest that you pull your head out of your idealized-slavery-ass? I'm sure that there were indentured servants, but that's a little different than a slave. Also, human life and human choice are not for sale. They are NOT. Additionally, there are plenty of slaves (yes, even in Biblical times, what a novel concept) that are taken against their will.

Quote:Because you have closed your mind to a trigger word that the society you live in has universally condemned. Your are Ignoring all Historical and economic value this system of barter offered to Man. Thus ignoring all those who were slaves offered society.

If the cost is even one human life, it is not worth it. It's cruel. Cruel and horrid. It's the exploitation of your fellow man. How can you not extend empathy for their plight? I don't even understand.

Quote:Show me where I said that

Dirc Wrote:Nope. Technically it would make one live stock..

Again. Humans are not livestock.

Quote:Are you employed?

Yep. I get paid hourly and I'm free to quit at any second. Freewill. You should think about that. This is a very poor analogy.

Quote:I am

Oh HELL no. I can't even respond to this. I'm shaking with anger. If we were in the same room, this is where I'd punch you in the face.

Quote:I am one generation removed from the Modern understanding of the term. My Grandfather's family held very large farm land in Korea. When Japan invaded they took His families land and put him and all of his siblings to work farming the land (after killing his parents.) They produced alot of rice for the emperor's soldiers, but he lost several of his brothers to starvation.(They would produce tons of rice for Japan, but was left picking individual kernels off of the store house floors all the while careful not to pick too much or it would be taken and bagged and sent some place else. When He was old enough he was conscripted to fight in the emperors army. After the war He returned home only to find that another war was about to begin this time with China looking to take over. So He pack up the family and moved to the US with the help of a GI who just so happen to have a farm of his own that he "allowed" my Hab-bo-gee to work as a way to repay his debt till he stroked out in the field (in his 80's..) In a country where 5th and 6th generation descendants of slaves were still demanding compensation for what ancestors no one could name had to endure. No one seem to care that in certain parts of this very same country the same thing was going on, under a different name. that is the problem with labling slavery the way yoou have. Because if it is not a unpaid back man wearing tattered cloths picking cotton, You people do know what you are looking at. nor do any of you care unless someone challenges the self righteous attitude you have built around your understanding of this word.
I get what a slave is because I worked with this man saw the scars, the disfigurement from broken bones, the permanent bend in his back from constantly working the ground, the leathered brown skin, the permanent squint from being in the sun, the burned and recessed eyes. Even knowing this i welcome the slavery God offers, because His burden is easy and His yoke is light.

Please, inform this man how much you love slavery. I'm sure he'd agree with you.

Quote:What your self righteous pride has you to fail to comprehend is that you are already a slave, and because you have swallowed the modern understanding of the term you do not know what one really is any more. Thus ensuring your eternal service to your hard master.

What you fail to understand is that I'm not speaking from pride. I'm speaking from HUMAN COMPASSION. You're so fucked in the head by your religion, you don't even understand how horrendous you sound. You're a monster. I hope you don't have children. I hope you never have children. Exposing a child to that kind of thinking is despicable.

We're done here. I have no respect for you. And still... I'd never wish slavery on you.

(July 10, 2012 at 11:41 am)Annik Wrote:

(July 10, 2012 at 2:06 am)Drich Wrote: My Grandfather's family held very large farm land in Korea. When Japan invaded they took His families land and put him and all of his siblings to work farming the land (after killing his parents.) They produced alot of rice for the emperor's soldiers, but he lost several of his brothers to starvation.

Please, inform this man how much you love slavery. I'm sure he'd agree with you.

^THIS.

Wow, hes aged since Twighlight... wait... nevermind.

(July 10, 2012 at 11:41 am)Annik Wrote: Freewill. You should think about that. This is a very poor analogy.

Oh dear Annik, you know what it is like to talk to faithfuls about freewill.. They still don't understand that ultimatums aren't part of having 'free will', so don't expect him to understand your point

I would ignore the Bible full stop and pick up a decent science book.

So much for cherry-picking.

[quote='Ziploc Surprise' pid='308383' dateline='1341933710']
[quote]Drich, you are mixing several separate concepts in the Bible. I also suspect that you are doing this on purpose to confuse people and also as an opportunity to preach to people.

First, the statement "of slaves to sin alive in Christ" is an analogy used to explain a theological concept - that's all.[/quote]
Before I get into a line by line arguement, lets address this statement first.

What if it is not an analogy?

what is a slave? In biblical terms it is one who yeild his will to that of another for some form of compensation. As a side note or personal observation the 'compensation offered is in far less value than the service offered.

How are we a slave to sin? We yeild our will to the parameters and consenquences of sin. In exchange 'we' get to be outside the expressed will of God. What will the final result or consenquence of sin be? Eternial seperation From God.

How is this any different than the biblical defination of what a slave is?
You are bound to the laws and consenquences of sin. said consenquences can not only have you beaten a inch from your life but have you beaten to death. It can take your dreams, leave you used abused and broken, it seperates families, it indentures men to hard labor, it sees men to prison, it takes the furtures of children, it has children put to death... i would dare say that there isn't one thing a 17th century taskmaster has not done that sin has not done a trillion times over.

Yet you can only see skin color, vocation, and compensation as the only means of identifying slavery.

[quote] We on this thread are not talking about that analogy and theological concept and you know this. We on this thread are talking about the physical practice of slavery, how this physical practice was condoned in the Bible, and how human beings have morally evolved to a point where we now know that the practice of slavery is wrong.[/quote]Slavery is wrong now, why because we do not need it to look like it did pre civial war any more. But make no mistakes there still are slaves. ask a mother who works 18 hours aday if she is free to do as she will or the man who sold his dreams to meet the requirements to live in under the requirements of wellfare. Slavery is still alive and well, it just been compartmentalized for you to only identify it if it presents itself in a very specific way. for if you saw it as it truly presents itself, then the selfrighteous would turn this country on it's ear, and we maybe fighting a second civial war before long.