(November 22, 2013 at 1:37 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(November 21, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Of course I would change my position to the supported evidence. However, your question does not answer my three key questions.
I will list them again:

1. Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery and that the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?"
2. Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????
3. He's not lying or bending the truth about what is written in the good old King James Version is he?

I'm not ignoring your questions, just want to make sure we're on the same page. Here I'll respond:

When we are talking about slavery, we're talking about a historically, ethically and anthropologically complex topic that simple soundbites do not capture. When people talk about slavery, particularly people with an American or western-centric worldview, we think of the experience and treatment of blacks. But slavery throughout history, and what has been referred to as slavery can be very different from American slavery.

So, referring to question (1), where you ask me "Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery," I would defer to the experts on the issue (of whom I am not). But as an untutored layman, my first question would be "What kind of slavery are you talking about? Do you have an America-centric view of slavery, where the word evokes Roots or Django Unchained?" It's entirely possible that the Bible condones slavery of one sort but not another. And what that slavery looks like might be very different from what Roots looked like.

Secondly, pertinent to (1) you go on to ask me "[does] the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?" " I don't believe so. I believe indentured servanthood is a much newer concept, having arisen long after the events depicted in the Bible. So the text would not have those words. Secondly, the text was written in Hebrew, which wouldn't say "indentured servants", or "slave" for that matter, but something like שִׁפְחַ֥ת or מֵעֲבָדֶ֖יךָ which could be translated as manservant or maidservant.

Rather, what I mean is that the depiction of slavery in the Bible, the Torah in particular (since I'm more familiar with that) resembles indentured servanthood much moreso than slavery.

Why do I say that? Because there are features of the text that describe a situation that is very different from American slavery:

-Kidnappers who enslave people against their will face a death sentence. (Ex 21:16)
-People often sold themselves into slavery (Lev 25:35)
-Slavery was not coerced (Deut 23:15)
-Some slaves end up with the same rights as the master's children (Ex 21:9)
-Slaves can take part in sacred religious practices that even the Priest's children cannot take part in (Lev. 22:11)

An informed view of the nature of Biblical slavery tells us that it's nothing like American slavery.

Pertaining to (2), you ask me "Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????

WTF kind of bullshit question is this? Did they endorse the beating of slaves? When did I say anything about that? It's possible the Biblical text is a lie, I have no idea. If you read my post carefully so far, consider yourself too educated to ask the final part of your question here.

As far as (3), who knows? I'm not a religious expert. But one thing I know is that history tells us that slavery in the ancient near east was nothing like American slavery, and peddling historical ignorance to make your point is downright embarrassingly idiotic.

No matter how you phrase it, slavery is slavery. No matter what degree or how friendly slave owners treated slaves.

(November 22, 2013 at 1:37 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

---

(November 21, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Of course I would change my position to the supported evidence. However, your question does not answer my three key questions.
I will list them again:

1. Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery and that the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?"
2. Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????
3. He's not lying or bending the truth about what is written in the good old King James Version is he?

I'm not ignoring your questions, just want to make sure we're on the same page. Here I'll respond:

When we are talking about slavery, we're talking about a historically, ethically and anthropologically complex topic that simple soundbites do not capture. When people talk about slavery, particularly people with an American or western-centric worldview, we think of the experience and treatment of blacks. But slavery throughout history, and what has been referred to as slavery can be very different from American slavery.

So, referring to question (1), where you ask me "Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery," I would defer to the experts on the issue (of whom I am not). But as an untutored layman, my first question would be "What kind of slavery are you talking about? Do you have an America-centric view of slavery, where the word evokes Roots or Django Unchained?" It's entirely possible that the Bible condones slavery of one sort but not another. And what that slavery looks like might be very different from what Roots looked like.

Secondly, pertinent to (1) you go on to ask me "[does] the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?" " I don't believe so. I believe indentured servanthood is a much newer concept, having arisen long after the events depicted in the Bible. So the text would not have those words. Secondly, the text was written in Hebrew, which wouldn't say "indentured servants", or "slave" for that matter, but something like שִׁפְחַ֥ת or מֵעֲבָדֶ֖יךָ which could be translated as manservant or maidservant.

Rather, what I mean is that the depiction of slavery in the Bible, the Torah in particular (since I'm more familiar with that) resembles indentured servanthood much moreso than slavery.

Why do I say that? Because there are features of the text that describe a situation that is very different from American slavery:

-Kidnappers who enslave people against their will face a death sentence. (Ex 21:16)
-People often sold themselves into slavery (Lev 25:35)
-Slavery was not coerced (Deut 23:15)
-Some slaves end up with the same rights as the master's children (Ex 21:9)
-Slaves can take part in sacred religious practices that even the Priest's children cannot take part in (Lev. 22:11)

An informed view of the nature of Biblical slavery tells us that it's nothing like American slavery.

Pertaining to (2), you ask me "Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????

WTF kind of bullshit question is this? Did they endorse the beating of slaves? When did I say anything about that? It's possible the Biblical text is a lie, I have no idea. If you read my post carefully so far, consider yourself too educated to ask the final part of your question here.

As far as (3), who knows? I'm not a religious expert. But one thing I know is that history tells us that slavery in the ancient near east was nothing like American slavery, and peddling historical ignorance to make your point is downright embarrassingly idiotic.

---

Seriously?!? You're claiming that there's a context in which it's ethically acceptable to own another human as property?

Shit Vinny, that's a new low.

(November 22, 2013 at 1:37 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(November 21, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Of course I would change my position to the supported evidence. However, your question does not answer my three key questions.
I will list them again:

1. Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery and that the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?"
2. Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????
3. He's not lying or bending the truth about what is written in the good old King James Version is he?

When we are talking about slavery, we're talking about a historically, ethically and anthropologically complex topic that simple soundbites do not capture. When people talk about slavery, particularly people with an American or western-centric worldview, we think of the experience and treatment of blacks. But slavery throughout history, and what has been referred to as slavery can be very different from American slavery.

This statement certainly seems probable to me, but it does not nullify Dusty's (the videographer) view. Lets not move the goal post. Dusty was referring to the Biblical view of slavery and made use of the exact words therein. He then made a fair point: Why would black people become Christians when it is the BIBLE that was used to justify enslaving them? There's nothing unreasonable or idiotic about that conclusion.

Vincenzo Wrote:So, referring to question (1), where you ask me "Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery," I would defer to the experts on the issue (of whom I am not). But as an untutored layman, my first question would be ...

Actually, you called Dusty an "idiot" because you claimed he was talking about things he knew nothing about. (Which made no sense because he was merely quoting the Bible and speaking about American History.) Are you now saying that as a layman, you are talking about things in which you are not an expert? Seems a bit Pot & Kettle.

Vincenzo Wrote:"What kind of slavery are you talking about? Do you have an America-centric view of slavery, where the word evokes Roots or Django Unchained?" It's entirely possible that the Bible condones slavery of one sort but not another. And what that slavery looks like might be very different from what Roots looked like.

I'm a student of history, perhaps not as good as Minimalist, but I can assure you, that slavery in America was brutal and the rights of a slave owner were broad. Django Unchained was a stretch yes, but slaves were often beaten brutally. Children were often taken abruptly from their parents and all manner of rape and murder happened to these slaves here in America. Regardless of this, it has nothing to do with Dusty's remarks. Nothing he said was a lie or a misrepresentation. The man was not an idiot ... at least not in either one of those videos. I have not seen any of his others.

Vincenzo Wrote:Secondly, pertinent to (1) you go on to ask me "[does] the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?" " I don't believe so. I believe indentured servanthood is a much newer concept, having arisen long after the events depicted in the Bible. So the text would not have those words. Secondly, the text was written in Hebrew, which wouldn't say "indentured servants", or "slave" for that matter, but something like שִׁפְחַ֥ת or מֵעֲבָדֶ֖יךָ which could be translated as manservant or maidservant.

I can't verify that translation as fact but I know that the Bible used in 18th and 19th century America was read from the English language. Which makes your point a tad moot. Also, we're moving the goal posts again here. We're not debating what ancient Jews considered "slaves" we're debating whether or not Dusty was an idiot for quoting the Bible and pointing out the absurdities of the comedian, Katt Williams.

Vincenzo Wrote:Rather, what I mean is that the depiction of slavery in the Bible, the Torah in particular (since I'm more familiar with that) resembles indentured servanthood much moreso than slavery.

I fail to see how this information affects you opinion of Dusty's remarks on several levels:
1. Dusty wasn't reading from the Torah and Jews are not considered Christians.
2. Katt is likely not Jewish and very VERY likely does not study the slavery practices of the ancient Hebrew. Ergo, Dusty's question is valid.
3. You are self-proclaimed layman on this subject. How can I deem what you say as universally credible?
4. Even if the Bible did promote servant-hood more than slavery, which I don't believe, it was still used to enslave his African ancestors.

Again, I see no fault with Dusty's conclusion in the video. (by the way, I'm just reminding you of this so that we both stay on point)

Vincenzo Wrote:Why do I say that? Because there are features of the text that describe a situation that is very different from American slavery: Cinjin's Responses in Blue

-Kidnappers who enslave people against their will face a death sentence. (Ex 21:16) A classic Biblical contradiction. Judges 21 (and many others will contradict this sentiment.
-People often sold themselves into slavery (Lev 25:35) This verse in no way implies that. It has nothing to do with selling one's self into slavery.
-Slavery was not coerced (Deut 23:15) Another Biblical contradiction. See Luke 12 among others.
-Some slaves end up with the same rights as the master's children (Ex 21:9) Some perhaps. Some don't. Read the entire chapter. Some daughters are sold without consent.
-Slaves can take part in sacred religious practices that even the Priest's children cannot take part in (Lev. 22:11) That's not what that verse means. Also who cares if that were true? It's inconsequential.

An informed view of the nature of Biblical slavery tells us that it's nothing like American slavery.

You use of the words "nothing like" are an absolute, which makes this statement false since there is indeed several things that are identical to American slavery even if not all. Regardless of this fact, Dusty's question remains legitimate: "Why would a black person become a Christian when it is the Bible that was used to enslave them?"

Vincenzo Wrote:Pertaining to (2), you ask me "Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????

WTF kind of bullshit question is this? Did they endorse the beating of slaves? When did I say anything about that? It's possible the Biblical text is a lie, I have no idea. If you read my post carefully so far, consider yourself too educated to ask the final part of your question here.

The question is legit. You have implied, with great fervor I might add, that slavery really isn't slavery and that the Jewish people merely had a bunch of happy servants around. This tells me that you think slavery isn't all that bad. I was asking you if that is how you feel. Which you have not answered.

Vincenzo Wrote:As far as (3), who knows? I'm not a religious expert. But one thing I know is that history tells us that slavery in the ancient near east was nothing like American slavery, and peddling historical ignorance to make your point is downright embarrassingly idiotic.

This last statement is really the crux of my argument. There's nothing remotely embarrassing or idiotic about what Dusty said in his video. He wasn't saying that colonial Americans were the same as ancient Hebrews. He didn't "peddle" anything historically inaccurate. He didn't even make the claim that the two are even similar. He pointed out that the Bible of the god that Katt Williams worships was used to enslave his entire race on this continent for hundreds of years.

The only one here who has made baseless conclusions is you sir.

(November 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

---

(November 22, 2013 at 1:37 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: When we are talking about slavery, we're talking about a historically, ethically and anthropologically complex topic that simple soundbites do not capture. When people talk about slavery, particularly people with an American or western-centric worldview, we think of the experience and treatment of blacks. But slavery throughout history, and what has been referred to as slavery can be very different from American slavery.

This statement certainly seems probable to me, but it does not nullify Dusty's (the videographer) view. Lets not move the goal post. Dusty was referring to the Biblical view of slavery and made use of the exact words therein. He then made a fair point: Why would black people become Christians when it is the BIBLE that was used to justify enslaving them? There's nothing unreasonable or idiotic about that conclusion.

Vincenzo Wrote:So, referring to question (1), where you ask me "Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery," I would defer to the experts on the issue (of whom I am not). But as an untutored layman, my first question would be ...

Actually, you called Dusty an "idiot" because you claimed he was talking about things he knew nothing about. (Which made no sense because he was merely quoting the Bible and speaking about American History.) Are you now saying that as a layman, you are talking about things in which you are not an expert? Seems a bit Pot & Kettle.

Vincenzo Wrote:"What kind of slavery are you talking about? Do you have an America-centric view of slavery, where the word evokes Roots or Django Unchained?" It's entirely possible that the Bible condones slavery of one sort but not another. And what that slavery looks like might be very different from what Roots looked like.

I'm a student of history, perhaps not as good as Minimalist, but I can assure you, that slavery in America was brutal and the rights of a slave owner were broad. Django Unchained was a stretch yes, but slaves were often beaten brutally. Children were often taken abruptly from their parents and all manner of rape and murder happened to these slaves here in America. Regardless of this, it has nothing to do with Dusty's remarks. Nothing he said was a lie or a misrepresentation. The man was not an idiot ... at least not in either one of those videos. I have not seen any of his others.

Vincenzo Wrote:Secondly, pertinent to (1) you go on to ask me "[does] the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?" " I don't believe so. I believe indentured servanthood is a much newer concept, having arisen long after the events depicted in the Bible. So the text would not have those words. Secondly, the text was written in Hebrew, which wouldn't say "indentured servants", or "slave" for that matter, but something like שִׁפְחַ֥ת or מֵעֲבָדֶ֖יךָ which could be translated as manservant or maidservant.

I can't verify that translation as fact but I know that the Bible used in 18th and 19th century America was read from the English language. Which makes your point a tad moot. Also, we're moving the goal posts again here. We're not debating what ancient Jews considered "slaves" we're debating whether or not Dusty was an idiot for quoting the Bible and pointing out the absurdities of the comedian, Katt Williams.

Vincenzo Wrote:Rather, what I mean is that the depiction of slavery in the Bible, the Torah in particular (since I'm more familiar with that) resembles indentured servanthood much moreso than slavery.

I fail to see how this information affects you opinion of Dusty's remarks on several levels:
1. Dusty wasn't reading from the Torah and Jews are not considered Christians.
2. Katt is likely not Jewish and very VERY likely does not study the slavery practices of the ancient Hebrew. Ergo, Dusty's question is valid.
3. You are self-proclaimed layman on this subject. How can I deem what you say as universally credible?
4. Even if the Bible did promote servant-hood more than slavery, which I don't believe, it was still used to enslave his African ancestors.

Again, I see no fault with Dusty's conclusion in the video. (by the way, I'm just reminding you of this so that we both stay on point)

Vincenzo Wrote:Why do I say that? Because there are features of the text that describe a situation that is very different from American slavery: Cinjin's Responses in Blue

-Kidnappers who enslave people against their will face a death sentence. (Ex 21:16) A classic Biblical contradiction. Judges 21 (and many others will contradict this sentiment.
-People often sold themselves into slavery (Lev 25:35) This verse in no way implies that. It has nothing to do with selling one's self into slavery.
-Slavery was not coerced (Deut 23:15) Another Biblical contradiction. See Luke 12 among others.
-Some slaves end up with the same rights as the master's children (Ex 21:9) Some perhaps. Some don't. Read the entire chapter. Some daughters are sold without consent.
-Slaves can take part in sacred religious practices that even the Priest's children cannot take part in (Lev. 22:11) That's not what that verse means. Also who cares if that were true? It's inconsequential.

An informed view of the nature of Biblical slavery tells us that it's nothing like American slavery.

You use of the words "nothing like" are an absolute, which makes this statement false since there is indeed several things that are identical to American slavery even if not all. Regardless of this fact, Dusty's question remains legitimate: "Why would a black person become a Christian when it is the Bible that was used to enslave them?"

Vincenzo Wrote:Pertaining to (2), you ask me "Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????

WTF kind of bullshit question is this? Did they endorse the beating of slaves? When did I say anything about that? It's possible the Biblical text is a lie, I have no idea. If you read my post carefully so far, consider yourself too educated to ask the final part of your question here.

The question is legit. You have implied, with great fervor I might add, that slavery really isn't slavery and that the Jewish people merely had a bunch of happy servants around. This tells me that you think slavery isn't all that bad. I was asking you if that is how you feel. Which you have not answered.

Vincenzo Wrote:As far as (3), who knows? I'm not a religious expert. But one thing I know is that history tells us that slavery in the ancient near east was nothing like American slavery, and peddling historical ignorance to make your point is downright embarrassingly idiotic.

This last statement is really the crux of my argument. There's nothing remotely embarrassing or idiotic about what Dusty said in his video. He wasn't saying that colonial Americans were the same as ancient Hebrews. He didn't "peddle" anything historically inaccurate. He didn't even make the claim that the two are even similar. He pointed out that the Bible of the god that Katt Williams worships was used to enslave his entire race on this continent for hundreds of years.

The only one here who has made baseless conclusions is you sir.

---

A bit lengthy, but well worth the read. Curious how he'll respond

(November 22, 2013 at 9:29 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Seriously?!? You're claiming that there's a context in which it's ethically acceptable to own another human as property?

Shit Vinny, that's a new low.

(November 22, 2013 at 8:00 am)Rigor Mortis Wrote: No matter how you phrase it, slavery is slavery. No matter what degree or how friendly slave owners treated slaves.

This is the kind of ignorance we need less of. Given certain variants of historical and cultural slavery, insurance agents and accountants qualify as "slaves". You're fine with slavery, idiots.

(November 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

---

(November 22, 2013 at 1:37 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: When we are talking about slavery, we're talking about a historically, ethically and anthropologically complex topic that simple soundbites do not capture. When people talk about slavery, particularly people with an American or western-centric worldview, we think of the experience and treatment of blacks. But slavery throughout history, and what has been referred to as slavery can be very different from American slavery.

This statement certainly seems probable to me, but it does not nullify Dusty's (the videographer) view. Lets not move the goal post. Dusty was referring to the Biblical view of slavery and made use of the exact words therein. He then made a fair point: Why would black people become Christians when it is the BIBLE that was used to justify enslaving them? There's nothing unreasonable or idiotic about that conclusion.

Vincenzo Wrote:So, referring to question (1), where you ask me "Are you asserting that the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery," I would defer to the experts on the issue (of whom I am not). But as an untutored layman, my first question would be ...

Actually, you called Dusty an "idiot" because you claimed he was talking about things he knew nothing about. (Which made no sense because he was merely quoting the Bible and speaking about American History.) Are you now saying that as a layman, you are talking about things in which you are not an expert? Seems a bit Pot & Kettle.

Vincenzo Wrote:"What kind of slavery are you talking about? Do you have an America-centric view of slavery, where the word evokes Roots or Django Unchained?" It's entirely possible that the Bible condones slavery of one sort but not another. And what that slavery looks like might be very different from what Roots looked like.

I'm a student of history, perhaps not as good as Minimalist, but I can assure you, that slavery in America was brutal and the rights of a slave owner were broad. Django Unchained was a stretch yes, but slaves were often beaten brutally. Children were often taken abruptly from their parents and all manner of rape and murder happened to these slaves here in America. Regardless of this, it has nothing to do with Dusty's remarks. Nothing he said was a lie or a misrepresentation. The man was not an idiot ... at least not in either one of those videos. I have not seen any of his others.

Vincenzo Wrote:Secondly, pertinent to (1) you go on to ask me "[does] the original Hebrew text of the Bible actually calls these people "indentured servants" rather than "slaves?" " I don't believe so. I believe indentured servanthood is a much newer concept, having arisen long after the events depicted in the Bible. So the text would not have those words. Secondly, the text was written in Hebrew, which wouldn't say "indentured servants", or "slave" for that matter, but something like שִׁפְחַ֥ת or מֵעֲבָדֶ֖יךָ which could be translated as manservant or maidservant.

I can't verify that translation as fact but I know that the Bible used in 18th and 19th century America was read from the English language. Which makes your point a tad moot. Also, we're moving the goal posts again here. We're not debating what ancient Jews considered "slaves" we're debating whether or not Dusty was an idiot for quoting the Bible and pointing out the absurdities of the comedian, Katt Williams.

Vincenzo Wrote:Rather, what I mean is that the depiction of slavery in the Bible, the Torah in particular (since I'm more familiar with that) resembles indentured servanthood much moreso than slavery.

I fail to see how this information affects you opinion of Dusty's remarks on several levels:
1. Dusty wasn't reading from the Torah and Jews are not considered Christians.
2. Katt is likely not Jewish and very VERY likely does not study the slavery practices of the ancient Hebrew. Ergo, Dusty's question is valid.
3. You are self-proclaimed layman on this subject. How can I deem what you say as universally credible?
4. Even if the Bible did promote servant-hood more than slavery, which I don't believe, it was still used to enslave his African ancestors.

Again, I see no fault with Dusty's conclusion in the video. (by the way, I'm just reminding you of this so that we both stay on point)

Vincenzo Wrote:Why do I say that? Because there are features of the text that describe a situation that is very different from American slavery: Cinjin's Responses in Blue

-Kidnappers who enslave people against their will face a death sentence. (Ex 21:16) A classic Biblical contradiction. Judges 21 (and many others will contradict this sentiment.
-People often sold themselves into slavery (Lev 25:35) This verse in no way implies that. It has nothing to do with selling one's self into slavery.
-Slavery was not coerced (Deut 23:15) Another Biblical contradiction. See Luke 12 among others.
-Some slaves end up with the same rights as the master's children (Ex 21:9) Some perhaps. Some don't. Read the entire chapter. Some daughters are sold without consent.
-Slaves can take part in sacred religious practices that even the Priest's children cannot take part in (Lev. 22:11) That's not what that verse means. Also who cares if that were true? It's inconsequential.

An informed view of the nature of Biblical slavery tells us that it's nothing like American slavery.

You use of the words "nothing like" are an absolute, which makes this statement false since there is indeed several things that are identical to American slavery even if not all. Regardless of this fact, Dusty's question remains legitimate: "Why would a black person become a Christian when it is the Bible that was used to enslave them?"

Vincenzo Wrote:Pertaining to (2), you ask me "Are you making the claim that the Hebrew did not endorse the beating of slaves and that the Biblical text is a lie and furthermore, that anyone who bashes Biblical slavery is an idiot who doesn't realize that "slavery wasn't really all that bad" ????

WTF kind of bullshit question is this? Did they endorse the beating of slaves? When did I say anything about that? It's possible the Biblical text is a lie, I have no idea. If you read my post carefully so far, consider yourself too educated to ask the final part of your question here.

The question is legit. You have implied, with great fervor I might add, that slavery really isn't slavery and that the Jewish people merely had a bunch of happy servants around. This tells me that you think slavery isn't all that bad. I was asking you if that is how you feel. Which you have not answered.

Vincenzo Wrote:As far as (3), who knows? I'm not a religious expert. But one thing I know is that history tells us that slavery in the ancient near east was nothing like American slavery, and peddling historical ignorance to make your point is downright embarrassingly idiotic.

This last statement is really the crux of my argument. There's nothing remotely embarrassing or idiotic about what Dusty said in his video. He wasn't saying that colonial Americans were the same as ancient Hebrews. He didn't "peddle" anything historically inaccurate. He didn't even make the claim that the two are even similar. He pointed out that the Bible of the god that Katt Williams worships was used to enslave his entire race on this continent for hundreds of years.

The only one here who has made baseless conclusions is you sir.

---

Cinjin, if the argument is "Why would blacks be Christians because the Bible was used to justify slavery," this argument is akin to "Why would blacks be police officers when police officers harassed blacks during segregation." They could say that the Bible was misused to justify slavery. Or perhaps the benefits of the Bible (purported salvation, eternal life in heaven, etc) outweighed the drawbacks of slavery. The Bible was, after all, also used to justify abolition. (Ask Dusty why he didn't mention that in the video)

There's no way Dusty's argument can be sound given the premise of "holy book use/misuse" and the conclusion that "one must not be an adherent of the holy book". Logic doesn't allow it.

All that Dusty can possibly say is "Da Bibul bad! Not be Krischun!" and that's what I think his argument actually is. But that's like saying "Guns are bad, don't be a police officer."

Just stupid reasoning, no matter how much you try to interpret the guy charitably. This is why Dusty is an idiot. Because he uses bad reasoning, and he gives atheists a bad name. Not to mention he misrepresents history to make an ideological point. He's basically lying to his audience by concealing from them details of Christian abolitionism.

Also, because he implies that American slavery was the only kind of slavery in existence (which he needs to do, in turn, to compare slavery in the Bible to the experience of blacks, as opposed to, say, Grecian slaves, or ancient Roman slaves or Hittite slaves). Otherwise why would he question black Christianity specifically?

And that brings me to the third problem: Dusty's hidden racism. For a white man to call a black person an Uncle Tom just blows my mind in terms of how much lack of self-awareness you need to have.

But on top of that he suggests suggesting that especially black people should reject Christianity because of slavery.

If the slavery described in the Bible really is that repulsive, shouldn't ALL people reject Christianity? Why just blacks? This Dusty character, as a white man doesn't find slavery troublesome for white people too? Are white people cool with slavery or something?

What a total numpty. It boggles the mind the kind of idiocy that gets a soapbox on the internet.

If you think you can rescue his argument, I seriously doubt it. But if you sincerely, seriously think so, give it a shot, I'll hear you out.

I have a lot more to say on historical slavery, but I hate to make like super long drawn out posts so we'll tackle it when we get to it.

(November 22, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: This is the kind of ignorance we need less of. Given certain variants of historical and cultural slavery, insurance agents and accountants qualify as "slaves". You're fine with slavery, idiots.

Not even a good analogy. Insurance agents and accountants aren't owned by other people who can then sell them for cash.

I do think it's amusing that Christians who claim the bible is 100% the word of God find themselves in the embarrassing predicament of being slavery apologists.

(November 22, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Cinjin, if the argument is "Why would blacks be Christians because the Bible was used to justify slavery," this argument is akin to "Why would blacks be police officers when police officers harassed blacks during segregation."

It's not "akin" at all. Show me historical evidence where police officers used the bible to harass young blacks.

Quote: They could say that the Bible was misused to justify slavery. Or perhaps the benefits of the Bible (purported salvation, eternal life in heaven, etc) outweighed the drawbacks of slavery. The Bible was, after all, also used to justify abolition. (Ask Dusty why he didn't mention that in the video)

The bible has been used to justify a lot of things, and this only serves to bolster my point. Dusty made a video mocking an idiotic comedian spewing out absurdities. He is not required to address all the wrongs done in the name of god. This just happens to be the one he is addressing currently.

Quote:There's no way Dusty's argument can be sound given the premise of "holy book use/misuse" and the conclusion that "one must not be an adherent of the holy book". Logic doesn't allow it.
All that Dusty can possibly say is "Da Bibul bad! Not be Krischun!" and that's what I think his argument actually is. But that's like saying "Guns are bad, don't be a police officer."

That analogy doesn't work. "Guns are bad" is extremely subjective, whereas the great majority of the world would agree that slavery is universally immoral. Also, you need to explain why Dusty's argument is illogical. His A+B does equal C. The video is not a debate, it's informative. He's simply showing a naive black man what the Bible says. Technically, he does not need to even draw a conclusion.

Quote:Just stupid reasoning, no matter how much you try to interpret the guy charitably. This is why Dusty is an idiot.

How?

Quote:Because he uses bad reasoning,

How? Give specific examples.

Quote:and he gives atheists a bad name.

This is not even possible. He's merely reading directly from the Bible. Do explain how he gives atheists a bad name? Specifically.

Quote: Not to mention he misrepresents history to make an ideological point.

Where? How? Give me the time stamp of where he misrepresented American history?

Quote:He's basically lying to his audience by concealing from them details of Christian abolitionism.

Give me specifics. Also, How is he basically lying and why is that different from just plain lying?

Quote:Also, because he implies that American slavery was the only kind of slavery in existence (which he needs to do, in turn, to compare slavery in the Bible to the experience of blacks, as opposed to, say, Grecian slaves, or ancient Roman slaves or Hittite slaves). Otherwise why would he question black Christianity specifically?

He implies no such thing. Give me a time stamp that I can refer to where he makes this grand implication. As for questioning black christianity, that's obvious. His whole point is that there's a black comedian mocking atheists with an absolutely retarded argument. He therefore points out the absurdity of a black man supporting christianity in the first place. AND Rusty's point is valid if you spend the time studying slavery in America.

Quote:And that brings me to the third problem: Dusty's hidden racism. For a white man to call a black person an Uncle Tom just blows my mind in terms of how much lack of self-awareness you need to have.

Racist or not, that was not your assertion and therefore completely inconsequential to this argument.

Quote:But on top of that he suggests suggesting that especially black people should reject Christianity because of slavery.

Of course he does, for the reason immediately above which I already addressed.

Quote:If the slavery described in the Bible really is that repulsive, shouldn't ALL people reject Christianity?

yes

Quote:Why just blacks? This Dusty character, as a white man doesn't find slavery troublesome for white people too? Are white people cool with slavery or something?

Strawman much.

Quote:What a total numpty. It boggles the mind the kind of idiocy that gets a soapbox on the internet.

Yeah, you're showing me that right now.

Quote:If you think you can rescue his argument, I seriously doubt it. But if you sincerely, seriously think so, give it a shot, I'll hear you out.

I'm not defending Rusty because he's an atheist (as I'm not one anyway). I'm defending his video because all the man did was quote from the Bible to show a buffoon how absurd he is. I found nothing in his remarks worthy of him being called an idiot.

(November 21, 2013 at 4:20 pm)Rigor Mortis Wrote:

(November 20, 2013 at 9:11 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Well, Katt Williams was the same guy that said he wanted to beat up Quentin Tarantino because he's a white man that wrote a movie with a lot of n-words in it, Django Unchained. Never mind that the movie is about slavery, and it was very relevant for the characters to be using that kind of langauge.

apparently he has a 163 IQ. LMFAO!!! http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_tug2jsme/

Who the fuck tested this guy?

Any successful comedian has above-average intelligence. It's not an easy thing to do, and certainly not for the stupid.

(November 23, 2013 at 1:36 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Any successful comedian has above-average intelligence. It's not an easy thing to do, and certainly not for the stupid.

I wouldn't quite go that far. There's plenty of stupid fucking celebrities. I mean really successful and REALLY stupid.

For what it's worth, Rigor.. I got pissed off listening to Kat Williams once too. Can't remember what about, I just think he's obscenely certain about himself and says some pretty fucked up shit.