The Problem with Christians

[Huggy Bear]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[Huggy Bear]

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, IDK, the difference might be that the bank owns the house, rather than owning me?  For starters. In my mind, owning people is an atrocity whereas owning a house is not, sure. You disagree? Evil or not, your scheme is likely illegal. Such operations are under extreme scrutiny for good reason - though..if you play your cards right you can get away with almost anything...regardless of it's shady ethical status.

Lay all of that aside, the strongest rebuttal in defense of god that you can manufacture is a tq........? That's disappointing. Seems to me like god and his little systems ought to hinge on more than just what other people were doing, had done, or still do? Does that -actually- answer a moral or ethical criticism? You take offense at the idea of holding god or the things god condones to today's standards...why...are they too high....for a god?

[abaris]

Just ignore the bible barrage already. It's as meaningful as quoting from a volume of Mickey Mouse.

[Huggy Bear]

Oh, IDK, the difference might be that the bank owns the house, rather than owning me?  For starters.  In my mind, owning people is an atrocity whereas owning a house is not, sure.  You disagree?  Evil or not, your scheme is likely illegal.  Such operations are under extreme scrutiny for good reason.

What part of "Hebrews didn't have a system of chattel slavery" don't you understand? If one was not allowed to force another into servitude, then that means it was on a voluntary basis.

If a person wants to sell himself into servitude, THAT'S HIS CHOICE; and I thought you people were all about freedom of choice, apparently it's only acceptable when it comes to the killing of unborn children.

As for the house your personhood is not owned but your labor is, and some employer will own it for the next 30 years, unless you want to be one the the homeless people aforementioned.

[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?

[Huggy Bear]

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?

It was NOT the exact same system

The Hebrew word for “bondservant,” ‘ebed, had a similar connotation. However, the Mosaic Law allowed an indentured servant to become a bondservant voluntarily: “If the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life” (Exodus 21:5-6).

Similar means "resembling without being identical".

All servants were to go free if they wished in the year of jubilee, unless a servant chose not to and declared of his own volition that he wanted to become a slave, then he had a hole bored into his ear marking him as such for the rest of his life.

Also you couldn't kill a servant with impunity either, because Hebrew law had something called the avenger of blood.

The authorities would punish murder by putting the offender to death, but in a manslaughter case the family of the victim had a right to go and kill the offender, unless the offender made it to one of the cities of refuge.

Hence why there is no official punishment for beating a servant and him dying a few days later... that is manslaughter not murder.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[Huggy Bear]

WHY WOULD THE ETERNAL CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE ALLOW HIS PEOPLE TO OWN THEIR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS AS PROPERTY FOR ONE FREAKIN' DAY!?!?

I want to focus on this point for a second.

God put us here under free moral agency. A person is free to do as he chooses, and that means to sell himself in to servitude if he so wishes.

Again servants were NOT property! Chattel slavery was always involuntary.

Eleazar was Abraham's servant and was also his heir, does that sound like property to you? Since when did property have a right to inherit anything?


Say you have one person that owns lots of land (a place to provide housing) and crops / livestock (food), and you have others that own nothing but need food and shelter, and are willing to work for it, except currency doesn't exist.

What would you propose?