RE: The Problem with Christians
March 7, 2016 at 2:16 pm
(This post was last modified: March 7, 2016 at 2:21 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
No. No, no, no. No! You're the one who's refusing to see past the blinders you're wearing on this subject. It was NOT voluntary, and it was exactly the same system employed (reconstructed along Biblical lines) in the United States from the 1600s to the 1860s. Your own web-cite explains quite clearly:
In Roman times, the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who voluntarily served others. But it usually referred to one who was held in a permanent position of servitude. Under Roman law, a bondservant was considered the owner’s personal property. Slaves essentially had no rights and could even be killed with impunity by their owners.
The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘ebed, had a similar connotation.
[Emphasis mine.]
We are NOT TALKING ABOUT voluntary service. You even misquoted the website. That's the exact phrasing from the website. 'Ebed is said to have a "similar connotation" to the Roman bondservant system, in which a bondservant/slave was "considered the owner's personal property", "essentially had no rights", and "could even be killed with impunity by their owners". (I suppose it's good, then, that the Hebrews at least prohibited beating a slave all the way to death... as long as he didn't die for a couple of days, of course. Progressives, they were!)
It was not a voluntary system for most people. Yes, there was also a system by which you could sell yourself into the system, in order to pay off debts, but that does not mean that the forced servitude was always or even usually voluntary! A good example of the "sold self to pay off debts" is the story of Varro, in the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand...but it also shows the many who were forced into the life by violence and conquest.
I mean, fuck, dude, this isn't hard!
You worship a "god" (that is, of course, what the leaders of men who made it up call this fictional character) that not only condones slavery, but exhorts people to be slaves in their attitudes. What could better serve the masters of this earth than a religion that teaches people that being a slave is a good thing?
In Roman times, the term bondservant or slave could refer to someone who voluntarily served others. But it usually referred to one who was held in a permanent position of servitude. Under Roman law, a bondservant was considered the owner’s personal property. Slaves essentially had no rights and could even be killed with impunity by their owners.
The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘ebed, had a similar connotation.
[Emphasis mine.]
We are NOT TALKING ABOUT voluntary service. You even misquoted the website. That's the exact phrasing from the website. 'Ebed is said to have a "similar connotation" to the Roman bondservant system, in which a bondservant/slave was "considered the owner's personal property", "essentially had no rights", and "could even be killed with impunity by their owners". (I suppose it's good, then, that the Hebrews at least prohibited beating a slave all the way to death... as long as he didn't die for a couple of days, of course. Progressives, they were!)
It was not a voluntary system for most people. Yes, there was also a system by which you could sell yourself into the system, in order to pay off debts, but that does not mean that the forced servitude was always or even usually voluntary! A good example of the "sold self to pay off debts" is the story of Varro, in the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand...but it also shows the many who were forced into the life by violence and conquest.
I mean, fuck, dude, this isn't hard!
You worship a "god" (that is, of course, what the leaders of men who made it up call this fictional character) that not only condones slavery, but exhorts people to be slaves in their attitudes. What could better serve the masters of this earth than a religion that teaches people that being a slave is a good thing?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
