Pat Robertson says it's ok to ignore parts of the Bible.

[Brian37]

For I was constantly being slighted for acknoweledging slavery in a modern context, while you all soap boxed from your high horses about how all slavery was always a bad thing.

It was ALWAYS BAD. It did benefit those who utilized it for resource gain, but just because something benefits someone doesn't make it moral, it just means it was used.

If not all slavery is bad, please provide me ONE example, back then or now, where any human would say to themselves "I'd love to be owned and abused by another human".

Immoral acts can benefit someone, but having a benefit does not equate to morality.

Slavery is never and was never good for the individual it has always been immoral. There is a huge difference between a butler in a Mansion who has the right to quit his job, and someone who is chased down and punished and or murdered for trying to leave their captors.

Kinda like your god claim itself. I am not a willing part of his deal. I have no say in the final outcome. I cant say "hey dude, I don't want to go to heaven or hell" And I had no choice in being born for that matter. Please explain to me where my consent and my wishes are under my ultimate control. As a concept, as a claim, your pet deity is a slave owner.

If humans should not be owned, and we both agree that we should not be owned, then our brains should not be owned either, so the only morally decent thing to do is reject the claim that something divine is our unmovable owner who can do what he wants with us, regardless if we beg or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

OT Industries™ Providing a kinder, gentler slavery since the early iron age.

[Ziploc Surprise]

If not all slavery is bad, please provide me ONE example, back then or now, where any human would say to themselves "I'd love to be owned and abused by another human".

Careful there, your asking for another sermon about how we should be slaves to god (the "by another human" part will be conveniently left out").

As for the slaves to god thing; is it pointless to point out that this is always translated (in practice) as being at some level of slaves to a pastor? If you surrender your will to god who are you in practice surrendering your will to. It's the one who tells you what god's will is. Yeah, yeah, the pastor will always say that you must seek this yourself but it is always in practice manipulated by the one's who will benefit (the pastor). Hence the reason why this is one of the more important doctrines in Christianity.

[Brian37]

If not all slavery is bad, please provide me ONE example, back then or now, where any human would say to themselves "I'd love to be owned and abused by another human".

Careful there, your asking for another sermon about how we should be slaves to god (the "by another human" part will be conveniently left out").

As for the slaves to god thing; is it pointless to point out that this is always translated (in practice) as being at some level of slaves to a pastor? If you surrender your will to god who are you in practice surrendering your will to. It's the one who tells you what god's will is. Yeah, yeah, the pastor will always say that you must seek this yourself but it is always in practice manipulated by the one's who will benefit (the pastor). Hence the reason why this is one of the more important doctrines in Christianity.

I am aware of the motif of "submission" as being a virtue, Islam has that too, so what?

What I am trying to do, not so much for this particular believer, but for the readers in general, through this discussion, is to treat it like a movie or book review, instead of a personal belief.

Would one, for example, value a Superman movie in which Superman would only help you if worshiped him like a god, "Pay me first, then I will stop that bullet from the robber".

Even without the slavery issue, say Superman was in an ally watching a women get raped and her throat slit, and Superman only did something AFTER the woman was dead?

And what if Superman after saving you threatened to beat the shit out of you if you didn't thank him and simply walked away?

The bible is insidious because the "submission" is not one of consent even though modern believers falsely try to paint it as such. The same mentality, minus the secular leash on Christianity, is also found in Islam.

There is absolutely no "free will" in the bible, anymore than you'd have a choice if an abusive spouse gave his wife two choices, "Stay and I wont hurt you, leave and I will beat the shit out of you".

"Choices" do exist in reality, but there is no morality in a threat/bribe motif. Only the ability of equal consent and the ability to walk away without harm, is moral.

Our real choices in the west are not a god based motif. In reality WE consent to the laws WE consent to, and absolute power is banned under civil governments that value pluralism and decent. and WE share power. So god as a claim, once you say he is the final authority, he is not a president who can be impeached, or has term limits, like we do in real life. The god claim AS A CLAIM fits the very definition of a dictator.

If I quit my job in real life, my boss cannot hunt me down torture me for leaving. And if I see him break the law himself, he can be arrested. The same cannot be said for the god/s of Abraham AS CLAIMS, as characters. As motifs they are sick.

[Annik]

[...]
There is absolutely no "free will" in the bible, anymore than you'd have a choice if an abusive spouse gave his wife two choices, "Stay and I wont hurt you, leave and I will beat the shit out of you". [...]

Small quibble, but if you're going to start out gender neutral, could you stay that way? This give the appearance that abusive spouses = only husbands, even though I doubt that's what you mean. :3

[Ziploc Surprise]

@Brian37. I agree with your statements. I particularly liked the Superman analogy.

As for my post I was referring to how the doctrine I mentioned is used in churches. There can be a difference between doctrine the church says it believes in and how it is used (the difference, I suppose between theory and practice). The Slavery doctrine, as it is used or practiced, gets people to willingly give up their will and thus can make them do shit for the pastor. It's even better when a pastor can get people to convert people for him. He can get his congregation to do his work for him. This is why the doctrine is preached often. It's a good doctrine for manipulation.

BTW sorry for the typing errors in my last post. I didn't proofread before I posted. Also I hope I'm not sounding too sexist here, as you know most fundy pastors are male. They have to ignore an important (not important for me, important for them) part of their doctrine to put women in these positions.

[Drich]

[quote='Brian37' pid='309268' dateline='1342105283']
[quote]It was ALWAYS BAD. It did benefit those who utilized it for resource gain, but just because something benefits someone doesn't make it moral, it just means it was used. [/quote]Then have you renounced your modern life style? Do you own anything produced in China, taiwan, Inda, Korea, or Mexico? Can you show that nothing you own has peices or parts assembled by slaves? If not does that make you a hypocrite or a fool?
Because you are living a life supplement by slave labor and yet denounce it.

[quote]If not all slavery is bad, please provide me ONE example, back then or now, where any human would say to themselves "I'd love to be owned and abused by another human". [/quote] modern slaves are often own by corperations now. They set up factories and company stores and apartments where the cost of living is often times higher than what can be made by one or two members of the family. This way they get the whole family (kids too) In exchange they provide everything needed including food, health care, housing, education, transportation, infant care, social activities, and entertainment. People are free to come and go as they please so long as you do not owe the company any money. If you do you must first work it off. The thing is it cost too much to live there to ever 'work off your debt.'

So when do people look to get into places like this? When the alternitive is living in a box, and going to land fills for your dinner. I knew a guy who worked at a place like this and even though it was bad he said people were lined up to get in.

But none of these people are dark skinned enough to matter so I guess you all are right and this is not really slavery, and it is ok to benfit from their 'work.'

[quote]Immoral acts can benefit someone, but having a benefit does not equate to morality.[/quote]'MORALITY IS NOT A REAL STANDARD!!!" How many times must I prove that 'morality' is nothing more than a collective social consciencousness.. Which is Great if you live in 1940's America, but not so good if you were a Jew in 1940's Germany.
"Morality" is trivial set of rules devised by the ruling class.

[quote]Slavery is never and was never good for the individual it has always been immoral. There is a huge difference between a butler in a Mansion who has the right to quit his job, and someone who is chased down and punished and or murdered for trying to leave their captors. [/quote]Brain washed.

[quote]Kinda like your god claim itself. I am not a willing part of his deal. I have no say in the final outcome. I cant say "hey dude, I don't want to go to heaven or hell" And I had no choice in being born for that matter. Please explain to me where my consent and my wishes are under my ultimate control. As a concept, as a claim, your pet deity is a slave owner. [/quote]what?

[quote]If humans should not be owned, and we both agree that we should not be owned, then our brains should not be owned either, [/quote]
You persume too much

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Then have you renounced your modern life style?........

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='309440' dateline='1342141230']
Then have you renounced your modern life style?........

Perhaps you simply do not know the defination of the term.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic

B37 said

"It was ALWAYS BAD. It did benefit those who utilized it for resource gain, but just because something benefits someone doesn't make it moral, it just means it was used."

I pointed out that most (including mine) current life styles would not be possiable, if not for modern day slave labors. So i asked if his verbal 'outrage' was matched by how he lived his life. (Was slavery truly so bad all the time that he would protest the benfits of slave labor?) Or did he look the otherway because the modern day slaves did not match the picture of the pre civial war slaves he had been taught to look for/ Was he content in reaping the benfits of slavery because it did not look like what he was told to think about slavery.

The point being, if you all have drank the Flav-o-Aide (Grape) and completely accepted that slavery was a thing of the past and can only take shape the way it did in pre civial war america, then what other forms of Slavery/CONTROL have you sold yourselves to?

I also directly answer a question as to how one could believe that Slavery to be a 'good thing' and how people would line up for months and years to get an oppertunity to sell themselves to a company now. the same thing applied when the bible was written. Except there weren't city dumps to scavenage for food nor were their cardboard boxes or ANY type of state sponsered welfare. (Nor any rights, before God issued them in a decree given to Moses.)So why would people sell themselves to rich men? Because then like now it is/was better than the alternitive.

Question ALL THINGS, (not just the questionable ones.) and hold on to what is good. Don't fool yourselves or believe the lies. Slavery is alive and well and if you are a blind consumer, you are apart of the modern day chains. I say this not to condemn, but to raise awareness to what the modern face of slavery looks like. It goes beyond goods and services. It is engrain in out soceity, our beliefs, our education system, our very way of life. What is slavery? It is control. Control you most happily give to the system designed to subdue you, and any real independant thought. What does it give in return? A sence of superiority and a very high horse to sit on to look down on all of those who do not intently focous on the defination of slavery you all have given yourselves to. If your 'morality' is wrong about slavery (One of it's most honored and righteous cries for absolute yeilding reverance) what else is your sense of 'morality' wrong about? If morality allows you to rename something like slavery or just has you look the other way (Because face it, we all know deep down why stuff from china cost so much less than stuff Made in the USA even after 6 to 8 weeks of shippingand going through 1/2 a dozen middle men who have alll marked up the price alittle.) What other 'Foundational' righteous truths have been compermised by being renamed?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I pointed out that most (including mine) current life styles would not be possiable, if not for modern day slave labors.