Slavery (on Thursdays)

[Rahul]

All I asked was for him to state his sources, otherwise he should't be commenting out of his posterior. You have a problem with that?

Commenting out of my posterior? heh. What a polite way of putting it.

The use of the term servant does not mean that the college servants were not slaves, because antebellum southerners often referred to their household slaves as servants and to the slaves who worked in their yards, gardens, and fields as hands. Many, if not all, of the college servants who worked for the university prior to 1863 were slaves.

http://www2.lib.unc.edu/mss/exhibits/sla...vants.html

[Rahul]

Here's another one. If you dig through any old books they always refer to slaves as house servants, body servants, or just their job. Like Blacksmith or Carpenter. I read some book from an English fellow that traveled around the South before the war. He remarked on how all the Southerners referred to slaves as servants and never as slaves. I'll try finding that reference as well.

It was like Southerners could pretend they weren't really slave owners if they called them something else.

From the standpoint of understanding between the white and colored races, Little Rock has always been a good
place to live. The better class families did not speak of their retainers as slaves; they were called servants.

SLAVE NARRATIVES
A Folk History of Slavery in the United States
From Interviews with Former Slaves

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11709/117...1709-h.htm

[Faith No More]

So you have issue with someone being told not to kill their slave? you do realize you are quoting old testament law right? Christians do not observe the old covenant, thats what Jesus came to abolish.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I have to comment about how this red herring irks me.

I mean, if Christians going to claim that they receive guidance from a perfect moral lawgiver, why do they attempt to distance themselves so much from his early commandments?

[Bad Wolf]

(In David Attenborough's voice):
'And here we have an example of a defeated theist. He flees from the forum with his tail between his legs, his head up his arse, and his fingers in his ears. Maybe he well think twice before testing the biblical knowledge of an atheist again.'

[fr0d0]

Even if he's wrong on that point, which he has yet to respond to so I will delay the judgement. He fully slam dunked the rest of the arguments.

[Bad Wolf]

And what arguments were these?

[Esquilax]

And what arguments were these?

That slavery wasn't slavery because his chosen translation didn't call it slavery?

I can see how that would appeal to Drich though, given how many of his own arguments boil down to "the bible doesn't not say this is true!"

[Huggy Bear]

Oh you're one of those Christians. God said it, so its right. You are an immoral thug

Well yeah, because he's God?
Romans 3:4
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

"You may buy your slaves from the heathen around you," doesn't say anything about where they might have come from, just that you're allowed to buy them. Besides, the issue of whether they were forced or not misses the point; there are plenty of ways to scam a person into slavery without directly forcing them. There are modern human trafficking rings who could tell you that. But the point is that slavery of any type is immoral; how is it that you're excusing desperate, destitute men being forced to take part in a system they have no alternative but to take part in, and being forced to work forever, as moral?

What in that is moral, to you? What context makes that okay?

Already covered this with Bad Wolf..
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.

what context makes it okay? Let put this in a modern context so we can form a better picture.

Let's say that there is a homeless guy standing on the side of a road holding a sign.. "Will work for food". And in this scenario, lets say a farmer who needs a farmhand approaches the Guy and inquires about why he's down on his luck. The homeless guy replies that he lost his home in the housing bubble crash, and between that and credit cards he is about $140,000 in debt. So the farmer offers him a deal\contract to pay off his debt + free room and board, to come work at his farm for the next 7 years. you somehow find that immoral? sounds win win to me.

The actual translation is "thou halt not commit Murder". The Law wasn't established until Moses. Why are the Jews called the chosen people? because God chose to give them the Law to show that it is impossible to gain salvation based on works. To break any of the 10 commandments is a capital offense.

Oh goody, here we go with the "oh, it's not really killing," bullshit. What's the use of a commandment like that, if you can just define as many loopholes as you want into what counts?

Matthew 19:
(KJV)
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Yep, because I definitely said I was perfect. That's what happened here, you dishonest prick.

Actually that is exactly what you implied.

I can't be sure that if I had that particular power that I wouldn't abuse it, and I'm the one that believes that I'd have to eventually answer for my actions. You on the other hand have no such belief, and yet you could say with absolute certainty...

"Zero, because I'm not a sociopath, unlike your god"

Makes you either "perfect" or the one that's being dishonest.

(In David Attenborough's voice):
'And here we have an example of a defeated theist. He flees from the forum with his tail between his legs, his head up his arse, and his fingers in his ears. Maybe he well think twice before testing the biblical knowledge of an atheist again.'

You know, yesterday was Sunday. I tend to spend that day in something called a church. But since your talking nonsense, I think i'm going to debut my new sig just for you.

Huggy74: "But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee"

Bad Wolf: "Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

Huggy74 "except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave""

Bad Wolf:"Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?"

Huggy74"they were paid a pittance."

Bad Wolf:"Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves."

LOL man, pure comedy.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I have to comment about how this red herring irks me.

I mean, if Christians going to claim that they receive guidance from a perfect moral lawgiver, why do they attempt to distance themselves so much from his early commandments?

Trust me, that has been thoroughly explained in this thread.

[Bad Wolf]

Well yeah, because he's God?
Romans 3:4
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

Pathetic...

[Already covered this with Bad Wolf..
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.

what context makes it okay? Let put this in a modern context so we can form a better picture.

Let's say that there is a homeless guy standing on the side of a road holding a sign.. "Will work for food". And in this scenario, lets say a farmer who needs a farmhand approaches the Guy and inquires about why he's down on his luck. The homeless guy replies that he lost his home in the housing bubble crash, and between that and credit cards he is about $140,000 in debt. So the farmer offers him a deal\contract to pay off his debt + free room and board, to come work at his farm for the next 7 years. you somehow find that immoral? sounds win win to me.

That is not the same as slavery. That is nothing at all like slavery. This homeless guy is not owned as property to be passed on to the farmers decedents. The farmer is banned (by law) from beating the guy. And the homeless guy can leave whenever he wants.

You know, yesterday was Sunday. I tend to spend that day in something called a church.

Yea, that place you talk to yourself for a few hours.

But since your talking nonsense, I think i'm going to debut my new sig just for you.

Huggy74: "But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee"

Bad Wolf: "Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

Huggy74 "except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave""

Bad Wolf:"Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?"

Huggy74"they were paid a pittance."

Bad Wolf:"Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves."

LOL man, pure comedy.

How fucking dare you. That is not how the conversation went. You have purposefully misrepresented my position and manipulated the text. Mods are you seeing this? Fucking pathetic.

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-page-8.html

Follow that link there. You aren't getting away with that you dishonest prick. When you said that they were paid a pittance, we were talking about servants in the 17th century

---

It really speaks volumes about how desperate this jackass is when he needs to literally manipulate the past conversations in an attempt to ridicule me. You thought you were gunna get away with that? You fucking bastard.

[Huggy Bear]

How fucking dare you. That is not how the conversation went. You have purposefully misrepresented my position and manipulated the text. Mods are you seeing this? Fucking pathetic.

---

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-page-8.html

Follow that link there. You aren't getting away with that you dishonest prick. When you said that they were paid a pittance, we were talking about servants in the 17th century

---

It really speaks volumes about how desperate this jackass is when he needs to literally manipulate the past conversations in an attempt to ridicule me. You thought you were gunna get away with that? You fucking bastard.

So you want me to post the full thing? thought you'd never ask. sure I edited it down because the whole point was you crying about semantics and then in the exact same post using the same "semantics" you were complaining about. the rest of it was unimportant.

But here you go for your viewing pleasure, taken directly from your post, word for word.

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.

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.

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)

except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave"

Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?

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

Like i said, pure comedy.

It really speaks volumes about how desperate this jackass is when he needs to literally manipulate the past conversations in an attempt to ridicule me. You thought you were gunna get away with that? You fucking bastard.

LOL you started with the ridicule..

(In David Attenborough's voice):
'And here we have an example of a defeated theist. He flees from the forum with his tail between his legs, his head up his arse, and his fingers in his ears. Maybe he well think twice before testing the biblical knowledge of an atheist again.'

Apparently you can dish it out but can't take it.