Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
February 28, 2014 at 2:18 pm (This post was last modified: February 28, 2014 at 2:19 pm by max-greece.)
(February 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(February 28, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: The whole Jewish thing is absolutely irrelevant. 7 years or 7 minutes, I don't give a shit, its immoral.
how is it immoral if you decide to sell yourself in to servitude? Please explain. Not giving someone the freedom of choice to do what the want with their life would be "immoral".
Quote:And that trick esquilax was talking about, to enslave your fellow jew forever, you know how that works? You give the slave a wife and then maybe they have children. And at the end of the 7th year, you let the slave go but he has to leave his family behind. But if he wants to stay with his family, you drive a steak through his ear, and he is yours forever. .
If he came with a wife the wife could go with him. I would assume the 7 years still applied to his family, or just wait till the year year of Jubilee, whichever came first. I like how you assume that the person doesn't like being a servant and would never willingly agree to a life of free room and board, when the alternative is probably homelessness. If you ever watched Downton Abby you would find that some find being a servant for some great house an honor. Is that immoral?
(February 28, 2014 at 12:51 pm)max-greece Wrote: What - no quotes from the NT on Slavery?
Here's a favourite of mine:
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)"
Note the provision for your master being Christian himself. Not a word of reproach for him.
All that notwithstanding I have to say the Biblical line on slavery is exactly in accordance with the relationship between the believer and his God. Christians are God's slaves. There is no hope of ever getting freedom - not even after death.
2 words that are missing from the Bible - Democracy and Republic - I wonder why?
Like I said the words slave/slaves only appears twice in the King James Version of the Bible, which is the most accurate and popular translation.
some translations add words or leave out whole scriptures.
1 Timothy 6(KJV)
1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
as you can see the word "Christian" doesn't even appear.
My point was to the faith of the masters - who get no criticism for owning slaves.
I highlighted the relevant bit in your version. Believing masters would be.......Druids? Moslems? Rastas? .....er.......no......perhaps.....CHRISTIANS?
Just because the word doesn't appear doesn't mean we can't establish who is being spoken about.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
(February 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: how is it immoral if you decide to sell yourself in to servitude? Please explain. Not giving someone the freedom of choice to do what the want with their life would be "immoral".
Because the slave owner is taking advantage of the slaves poor fortune. Why could he not pay them, you know, how everyone does today? A job? Where you aren't treated as property. Making people slaves was not the only fucking option.
Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
Quote:
(February 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If he came with a wife the wife could go with him. I would assume the 7 years still applied to his family, or just wait till the year year of Jubilee, whichever came first.
You are wrong.
why? because you say so?
Leviticus 25
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
Quote:
(February 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I like how you assume that the person doesn't like being a servant and would never willingly agree to a life of free room and board, when the alternative is probably homelessness.
Whether they like being a Slave or not is totally irrelevant. Slaves are as valuable to the slave owner as a piece of furniture. They could treat them like angels, it doesn't change the fact that they are owned as property, as an object. And that is immoral.
except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave"
Quote:
(February 28, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If you ever watched Downton Abby you would find that some find being a servant for some great house an honor. Is that immoral?
They were servants, not slaves. They were paid. They were free to quit whenever they wanted. And they were not allowed to be beaten to within an inch of their lives. Dumbass. It is not the same at all.
they were paid a pittance. here is part of a post I found describing life in that time period.
"In the 1700s and early 1800s, in the Georgian era, ALL the land around a lord's estate became private property. EVERYTHING. The forests, the ponds, the common-land, the farming land...even the animals. If a rabbit hopped over the lord's fence, it was considered HIS PROPERTY. If you shot it without permission, you could be hanged for poaching.
Some lords stuck to the old ways and kept tenant farmers. After all, it was how it had been for centuries, and they saw no reason to change. After all, without farmers, they'd have no food.
But the Enclosure Acts and the Game Laws devastated rural England. Forced off their land, the majority of farmers and farmhands and their familes flocked to the big cities to find work...or starve. Crime in London is skyrocketing up faster than you can count it. Jails are literally overflowing with criminals. Punishments are harsh. For stealing so much as a handkerchief, you could be hanged by the neck until dead.
There was VERY little social welfare. You either begged, you relied on charities, or you ended up in the workhouse. And the workhouse was so horrible that you would never want to end up there. It was literally worse than prison.
Fast forwards a few decades.
The Industrial Revolution has brought jobs. But it's brought even more people into the cities. Without enough jobs to go around, people will take WHATEVER situations they can find.
Enter, the domestic servant.
Domestic service in those days was dirt cheap. There was a huge surplus of labour and it cost a moderately wealthy family almost nothing, to keep a maid or three, in the house, to do the heavy work.
While it's true that it was a system of interdependence (the master needs the servant to do the work, the servant needs the master for a job. The master could fire the servant. The servant could resign. Both are in the lurch etc etc etc), it was nonetheless true that domestic service was a form of social security.
There's very few pension-schemes in those days. Moral reformists said that if you earned a pension, you were a wastrel and a vagabond who was idle and lazy. There was no distinction between those who held a pension for lack of ability, and those who held one for lack of motivation (ie: lazy). They tarred everyone with the same brush, and they took strokes as wide as the street is broad.
Domestic service was seen as a way out of the drudgery of the period.
If you lived in an overcrowded, filthy London tenement, with four brothers and three sisters, with both your parents working and earning maybe a shilling between them each day of the week, you counted your lucky stars if you managed to get a job as a housemaid, or a hallboy, a scullion, a boot-boy...anything.
Granted, the pay was not great. In fact even for the highest ranking staff-members, it was not especially large. But that was because you had almost everything provided free. Bedding, housing, food, safety and security a job, clothing...
Yes, you couldn't marry (or it was difficult TO marry, rather), and there were a long list of other issues, but servants ignored all these things for the security of knowing that they weren't going to starve.
The lowest-ranking servants were the scullery-maid and the hallboy. The scullery maid did all the washing-up. The hallboy did all the heavy work. Heavy work might include carrying coal, carrying firewood, cleaning below-stairs, moving furniture and anything else that a woman couldn't do.
A footman NEVER sullied his hands with work like that. That was the job of the hallboy.
Some masters were horrible to their servants. It wasn't unheard of for the master of the house to rape the servant-girls. But mistresses were not exactly angels, either. There are plenty of recorded cases, and one notorious one, where a mistress flogged her housemaids with a horsewhip, back in Georgian times. The beatings were so vicious that at least one maid died. The mistress was arrested and thrown in prison."
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves. They were treated as property, they were not paid, and they could not leave whenever they wanted. The fact that you are appealing to word games is pathetic.
Quote:You are wrong.
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: why? because you say so?
Leviticus 25
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
No, you aren't wrong because I say so, you are wrong because your bible says so:
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave"
Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: they were paid a pittance. here is part of a post I found describing life in that time period.
Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves. They were not bought and passed around as property, they were not allowed to be beaten, and they could leave and quit their job whenever they want. Give up, you are just plain wrong on this
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
"In the 1700s and early 1800s, in the Georgian era, ALL the land around a lord's estate became private property. EVERYTHING. The forests, the ponds, the common-land, the farming land...even the animals. If a rabbit hopped over the lord's fence, it was considered HIS PROPERTY. If you shot it without permission, you could be hanged for poaching.
Some lords stuck to the old ways and kept tenant farmers. After all, it was how it had been for centuries, and they saw no reason to change. After all, without farmers, they'd have no food.
But the Enclosure Acts and the Game Laws devastated rural England. Forced off their land, the majority of farmers and farmhands and their familes flocked to the big cities to find work...or starve. Crime in London is skyrocketing up faster than you can count it. Jails are literally overflowing with criminals. Punishments are harsh. For stealing so much as a handkerchief, you could be hanged by the neck until dead.
There was VERY little social welfare. You either begged, you relied on charities, or you ended up in the workhouse. And the workhouse was so horrible that you would never want to end up there. It was literally worse than prison.
Fast forwards a few decades.
The Industrial Revolution has brought jobs. But it's brought even more people into the cities. Without enough jobs to go around, people will take WHATEVER situations they can find.
Enter, the domestic servant.
Domestic service in those days was dirt cheap. There was a huge surplus of labour and it cost a moderately wealthy family almost nothing, to keep a maid or three, in the house, to do the heavy work.
While it's true that it was a system of interdependence (the master needs the servant to do the work, the servant needs the master for a job. The master could fire the servant. The servant could resign. Both are in the lurch etc etc etc), it was nonetheless true that domestic service was a form of social security.
There's very few pension-schemes in those days. Moral reformists said that if you earned a pension, you were a wastrel and a vagabond who was idle and lazy. There was no distinction between those who held a pension for lack of ability, and those who held one for lack of motivation (ie: lazy). They tarred everyone with the same brush, and they took strokes as wide as the street is broad.
Domestic service was seen as a way out of the drudgery of the period.
If you lived in an overcrowded, filthy London tenement, with four brothers and three sisters, with both your parents working and earning maybe a shilling between them each day of the week, you counted your lucky stars if you managed to get a job as a housemaid, or a hallboy, a scullion, a boot-boy...anything.
Granted, the pay was not great. In fact even for the highest ranking staff-members, it was not especially large. But that was because you had almost everything provided free. Bedding, housing, food, safety and security a job, clothing...
Yes, you couldn't marry (or it was difficult TO marry, rather), and there were a long list of other issues, but servants ignored all these things for the security of knowing that they weren't going to starve.
The lowest-ranking servants were the scullery-maid and the hallboy. The scullery maid did all the washing-up. The hallboy did all the heavy work. Heavy work might include carrying coal, carrying firewood, cleaning below-stairs, moving furniture and anything else that a woman couldn't do.
A footman NEVER sullied his hands with work like that. That was the job of the hallboy.
Some masters were horrible to their servants. It wasn't unheard of for the master of the house to rape the servant-girls. But mistresses were not exactly angels, either. There are plenty of recorded cases, and one notorious one, where a mistress flogged her housemaids with a horsewhip, back in Georgian times. The beatings were so vicious that at least one maid died. The mistress was arrested and thrown in prison."
And an enormous block of irrelevant text there....
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House
“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
March 1, 2014 at 5:38 pm (This post was last modified: March 1, 2014 at 5:40 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Because the slave owner is taking advantage of the slaves poor fortune. Why could he not pay them, you know, how everyone does today? A job? Where you aren't treated as property. Making people slaves was not the only fucking option.
(February 28, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
Bad Wolf Wrote:Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves. They were treated as property, they were not paid, and they could not leave whenever they wanted. The fact that you are appealing to word games is pathetic.
How is a hired servant vs slave semantics? You do realize hired means paid right? So then why would you insist that they weren't paid when I clearly showed you an instance were they were. You can't be paid and be a "slave" now can you.
Lol "semantics" I don't think that word means what you think it means. smh.
Also I explained the word "slave" only appears one time in the KJV (and not in relation to humans) of the Bible which was published in 1611, the NLT version was published in 1996 (lol) and is not an accurate translation. I don't know anyone that uses the NLT translation except "athiest", because apparently it fits your agenda. If the words "servant" and "slave" are semantics, then you shouldn't mind posting from the KJV.
(March 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves. They were not bought and passed around as property, they were not allowed to be beaten, and they could leave and quit their job whenever they want. Give up, you are just plain wrong on this
Quote:"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)"
(March 1, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Minimalist Wrote: "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)"
Already covered this, you are quoting from the NLT version of the bible which is not an accurate translation, it is translated purely for easier reading.
here is the KJV of that same passage. 1 Timothy 6
1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
as you can see, the word "christian" isn't there, neither is "slave", nor the name "Timothy".
Quote:The religion of sheep.
I agree.
John 10
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
(March 1, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Minimalist Wrote: "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)"
Already covered this, you are quoting from the NLT version of the bible which is not an accurate translation, it is translated purely for easier reading.
here is the KJV of that same passage. 1 Timothy 6
1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
as you can see, the word "christian" isn't there, neither is "slave", nor the name "Timothy".
Quote:The religion of sheep.
I agree.
John 10
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
How do u know what translation/ bible is to be the right one?
(March 1, 2014 at 5:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: How is a hired servant vs slave semantics? You do realize hired means paid right? So then why would you insist that they weren't paid when I clearly showed you an instance were they were. You can't be paid and be a "slave" now can you.
You do understand that merely calling them servants doesn't actually make them servants if they weren't treated like them, right? Propagandists do this all the time, calling something one thing while acting as if it were another. That's why what you're doing is semantics; you're happy to call these people servants, and ignore the instructions for how they are to be treated, which includes beating them, passing them down as property- you can't do that with a servant - and buying them.
It's a profoundly dishonest tactic, but then again, dishonesty and doublespeak is all you have.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
March 2, 2014 at 1:31 am (This post was last modified: March 2, 2014 at 1:31 am by Rahul.)
(March 2, 2014 at 1:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: You do understand that merely calling them servants doesn't actually make them servants if they weren't treated like them, right? Propagandists do this all the time, calling something one thing while acting as if it were another. That's why what you're doing is semantics; you're happy to call these people servants, and ignore the instructions for how they are to be treated, which includes beating them, passing them down as property- you can't do that with a servant - and buying them.
It's a profoundly dishonest tactic, but then again, dishonesty and doublespeak is all you have.
True. If you visited the Southern States of the US in the years leading up to the US Civil War you would hear the word "slave" hardly ever used, even though slaves were everywhere.
Everyone, especially slave owners, would call them "servants". Very, very rarely would they be referred to as "slaves". And never in polite company. Or to outsiders.
Everything I needed to know about life I learned on Dagobah.
(March 2, 2014 at 1:31 am)Rahul Wrote: True. If you visited the Southern States of the US in the years leading up to the US Civil War you would hear the word "slave" hardly ever used, even though slaves were everywhere.
Everyone, especially slave owners, would call them "servants". Very, very rarely would they be referred to as "slaves". And never in polite company. Or to outsiders.
I thought they were called "niggers." Did Django Unchained lie to me?
![[Image: tumblr_m22cjju0Zv1qktv7n.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m22cjju0Zv1qktv7n.jpg)
- and buying them.
