RE: Pat Robertson says it's ok to ignore parts of the Bible.
July 10, 2012 at 11:26 am
(This post was last modified: July 10, 2012 at 12:07 pm by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
(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.
