The Problem with Christians

[Huggy Bear]

Don't feel like dealing with all quotes, there so I'll sum up briefly:

1) The tradition comes from the society at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, and the stories are part of the apocrypha that were found along with it. There was a church legend of the heritage Ol' Elz's lineage, and the apocrypha seem to back up the source of that legend. If the only things you know about how your legends were formed is based on what came out on the other side of the editor's table, then your knowledge will only reflect what someone deliberately wanted you to think. Doesn't that frighten you a little?

There's just one problem with the theory of Eliezer being Abrahams son:

Genesis 15
2 But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?”
3 And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”
4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir."

There is a reason why the apocrypha aren't considered cannon.

Also, again, If Eliezar is considered "property", how is he inheriting Abraham's estate?

2) Most African slaves were not kidnapped by us, but were part of the conquests of Colonial wars, as we backed one group against the other in an attempt to gain control of the resource-rich nations to plunder. They were then sold by their fellow Africans (of other nations/tribes) to the European/American shippers, who then brought them to the auction blocks throughout the Persian Gulf region and the Americas. And you are out of your mind if you think that it is reasonable to conclude "they shall be your possession" or "to be an inheritance to your children" means anything other than personal property... chattel slavery.

3) The slave trade in North America continued long after it was technically banned:

The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, prevented Congress from completely banning the importation of slaves until 1808, although Congress regulated it in the Slave Trade Act of 1794, and in subsequent Acts in 1800 and 1803. Knowing the trade would end, in the eight years from 1800 until December 31, 1807, the states of Georgia and South Carolina reopened their trade and traders imported about 100,000 enslaved Africans into the country. Numerous states individually passed laws against importing slaves after the Revolution.

By January 1, 1808, when Congress banned further imports, only South Carolina was still importing slaves. Congress allowed continued trade only in slaves who were descendants of those currently in the United States. The domestic slave trade became more profitable than ever with the expansion of cultivation in the Deep South for cotton and sugar crops. In addition, US citizens could participate in the international slave trade and the outfitting of ships for that trade. Slavery in the United States became, more or less, self-sustaining by natural increase among the current slaves and their descendants.

Despite the ban, slave imports continued, if on a smaller scale, with smugglers continuing to bring in slaves past the U.S. Navy's African Slave Trade Patrol to South Carolina, and overland from Texas and Florida, both under Spanish control. Congress increased the punishment associated with importing slaves, classifying it in 1820 as an act of piracy, with smugglers subject to harsh penalties, including death if caught. After that, "it is unlikely that more than 10,000 [slaves] were successfully landed in the United States." But, some smuggling of slaves into the United States continued until just before the start of the Civil War.

(ETA: Citation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in...ted_States )

And yet, as we all know, the sales of slaves not only continued but was regulated by Southern state laws up until the Civil War, after which Jim Crow laws spent a century doing everything the leaders could sneak past, to try to find new laws to use to maintain slavery-while-technically-prohibited.

It's also one of the reasons any person of color (and/or of reason) should be afraid when people start grumbling too much about the federal government and promoting "state's rights" arguments now popular in conservative circles.

Here we go, the inevitable comparison of "slavery" in the bible to the Atlantic slave trade, but you forget one thing; The Atlantic slave trade justified itself through racism, slaves weren't any different than animals, there is no comparison.

Was not Joseph (the slave of Potiphar, an Egyptian) falsely accused of trying to rape the wife of his master, yet he was only put in prison? Why not just kill him since as you seem to think he was only property?

What do you think would happen if an American slave was accused of trying to rape the masters wife? Like I said, no comparison.

If you want a more apt comparison then biblical servitude was more like feudalism, "lord" and "vassal" are synonymous with "master" and "slave", yet I don't hear anyone railing against the evils of feudalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

A lord was in broad terms a noble who held land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord, and the land was known as a fief. In exchange for the use of the fief and the protection of the lord, the vassal would provide some sort of service to the lord. There were many varieties of feudal land tenure, consisting of military and non-military service. The obligations and corresponding rights between lord and vassal concerning the fief form the basis of the feudal relationship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

Serfdom is the status of many peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage, which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century.

Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also his mines, forests and roads. The manor formed the basic unit of feudal society, and the lord of the manor and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs formed the lowest social class of feudal society.

*emphasis mine*
When Abraham's nephew was taken captive, he basically called all his servants to arms and went to war against 4 kings.

Genesis 14
14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

See? The feudal comparison is more appropriate.

What do you think would happen if an American slave holder armed 318 slaves? Once again, no comparison.

And you are out of your mind if you think that it is reasonable to conclude "they shall be your possession" or "to be an inheritance to your children" means anything other than personal property... chattel slavery.

Possession does not imply ownership, you can have possession of something without being the owner, hence the word "borrow". One entered into a contract by selling himself in the case of the bible or by taking an oath of vassalage in the case of feudalism.

In the case of the Bible the contract was until the year of Jubilee, no if's, and's or but's. Now if the bondservant didn't want to go free, that was HIS prerogative.

Tell me when American slaves were scheduled to go free? again, no comparison.